English may not be owned -- and that is really a problem, because it has no underlying logic
... and yet people use it, and have no problem with that. Somehow it's a language of choice for most who have to co-operate with people from other nations.
and grows in any direction, and eventually will lose its "language" characteristic -- but accessible to anyone it sure is not.
every language changes. Massive base of already produced text will be accessible for people using future variations of English.
Everyone who is well-versed in language learning frown at English,
elaborate
while all those who have a hard time will favor it -- either because it's already their first language or because they mistakenly think it is easier to learn just one additional one.
... or maybe because it is a quite easy to learn for (for at least B1/B2 level); it doesn't take a long time to speak communicative language. it's grammar is far easier than Spanish or Russian one.
There is not much sense in comparing Esperanto to English, such is the difference in complexity. Esperanto is like riding a tricycle, while English would be like using a competition motorcycle... it's great until you fall.
... or unless you actually want to read anything other than the language course- in that case Esperanto has absolutely nothing to offer, while there is a plethora of sources in English.
Inexperienced people can speak Esperanto, meanwhile skilled long time native English speakers sometimes fail at using it (as can be seen in lots of Youtube videos).
... can speak Esperanto with whom? There is hardly any speakers of it. And no, Esperanto's phonetics isn't really that easy for non-Europeans. While, I must admit, English orthography is a rather... peculiar (when compared to Esperanto or even Spanish), I must add that's using YT videos of someone mis-pronuncing words isn't really any proof.
"Badly" (i.e. non conforming to the, loosely defined, standard) English is the most common English
Vocabulary? Ask the Japanese how easy is to adapt a new word from a foreign language.
no, it's not easy. Are you aware how hard was 'scientification' of Russian?
About the wider discussion, most scientific articles in English are junk, because of the use of US/Imperial units (feet, inches and other body parts). That is totally unscientific.
When I comment I try to show respect to my interlocutors, which of course mean that- even when I don't agree with them- I prefer not to use vulgar words.
But forgive me, but your last quote is probably the most idiotic text i've read this weak.
Most people don't have English as a first language, so they cannot stick with it. A couple of Google searches say English native speakers are 4.4% of the world population (that is, a 0.04 share of the number of living people -- not exactly much, heh?). Google "number of native english speakers in world" and "world population 2018", if you don't believe me. We're talking native speakers here because you've mentioned not learning a second language.
... which still takes it to the top of the most commonly spoken languages. Moder Standard Arabic, or Chinese isn't "native" to most Arabs or Chinese, respectively.
Beside- what's "native"?
Is English "native" in Scandinavia, where it is spoken quite often "better" than in the UK?
Beside- English is the one of very few (if not the only one) lingo which has more L2 speakers than L1. and the ratio is like 4:1 or more.
And why learn English in countries where you're exposed to e.g. French culture?
In these countries one learns French. Than one realizes that they are better off with English and learn it.
Remember- we are talking about the scientific world. Like it or not, French is almost non-existent there.
>_ English ain't even English in reality, not a regional tongue but an assemblage of regional tongues, mainly European but as it spreads further gaining other words and continually changing.
there is Standard English, like it or not. French or German aren't "French and German in reality" they are- to a degree- constructed languages, taught at school as a part of unification of country. Regional dialects differ, quite a lot.
That's why it's not English and that's why English is not as important as you believe it to be.
It's unrelated to what you wrote before.
And yeah, English is important.
For a while, French was the most used world language but its time passed...
Even in diplomacy, French was never even close as popular as English is in the sciences. Not even close. None language ever was- not Greek, not Arabic, not Classical Chinese nor Latin.
guess what will happen to English?
God thanks there is no Royal Academy for English, and English words (and syntax, and grammar) change their meaning over time (slowly). I don't have doubts that English still will be a leading lingo in sciences in 100 years or more. But it may be a different English to the one we use as a standard.
Beside- one doesn't have to wait for that. Already European English differs a bit from the one used in the UK and USA.
What will be the next? Mandarin?
Most scientific journals in China are written in English (with Chinese regionalisms).
Japanese? Korean?
Why do you think any of those countries would become powerhouse for science?
Why would you think other countries would accept these languages for using them in science?
I got no idea (but according to my daughter, Korean is easier).
script most certainly is.
I guess English will hold for a long time in certain niches, just like French is still important in diplomacy,
When the Chinese diplomats talk with German ones, do they speak French or English?
When Argentinian one speaks with Greeks, do they use French or English?
French still, obviously is somehow important- but apart from the former colonies it isn't really used that much in diplomacy. not anymore
but I think Esperanto would be a less painful way. I specially recommend it over English as a way to get a more faithful translation of works from most countries.
1. Esperanto is unchangeable, monolithic lingo and therefore unlikely to be accepted by anyone than its enthusiasts.
2. Esperanto is useless for science (and that's the use i'm mostly concerned about). Ido has shown it (but it's also useless now).
3. Esperanto's international vocabulary is a joke.
If any of the non-ethnic languages would, somehow, dominate the scientific languages it would be the Interlingua
English is popular because of history of the last 70 years not because of a âoehuge vocabularyâ
English was used for science long before it become popular.
there are much older languages with a much richer vocabulary (and very long history in science) like Arabic for example.
what are arabic words for TV, hadron collider, epigenetics, stereochemistry etc?
btw, while arabic was popular amongst the philosopher during the middle ages (much more than latin tbh), since the Renneisance Arab speaking word ceased to produce anything worthy. How many Nobel Prize winners are Arabs?
English didnâ(TM)t even exist yet when they were doing science in Arabic.
and yet pretty much all the science is done in English now, for hundreds of years almost none done in Arabic. funny, innit?
I wouldnâ(TM)t say English has a particularly rich vocabulary in fact most of its scientific vocabulary comes from Latin
there is more words in English of greco-latin origin than there were words in ancient greek (not surprisingly, we know now a bit more).
is it worth the detour if the goal is to learn English? Probably not.
The data says Hungarian, Russian, and French people who spend four years studying Esperanto (1 year) and a third language (3 years) all learn the third language to greater proficiency than if they spent all four years studying only the target language.
I would say 110% is more than 100% and thus worth the detour when the total resource (time) investment is the same. In this case, it's more like 210%, because you also picked up Esperanto along the way, for whatever that's worth.
Interlingua is primarily a written language (so, de facto, is Esperanto)- in that case pronunciation isn't really that big obstacle (for non-romance speakers).
But pronunciation (when the spoken lingo is used) has an advantage- it's familiar to the languages from which Interlingua is derivated- therefore it could be understood easily(-ish) by them (similar to what happens with written lingo- it's understood easily(-ish) by English, Spanish, Portugese, Italian speakers).
Orthography is also not that bad- it follows the way the words are written in control languages, thus making it (i.e. the words) easily recognisible.
believe me- the French grammar is not treated by the French Academy as religiously like Esperanto's grammar by Esperantists- it's not about the "language loosing it's soul" (or, rather opposing the anglicizing of it) but it's more like the religion.
And yeah, I'm aware of Esperanto's grammar- in fact it was my first artificial language (ages ago). then i've moved to Ido, then to Interlingua. On the end I've settled up for English- despite its idiotic spelling and pronunciation it's probably the most useful auxiliary language (after all, there is few times more non-native speakers than natives).
First: There is no cyrillic in Esperanto.
Secondly: Its grammar is much simpler than the grammar of most "natural" languages.
Thirdly: Even more simplified grammar, without the non-standard letters and with less obscure vocabulary is called "Ido". There was, just over a hundred ago, a rather big schism, and Ido (AKA Reformed Esperanto) was born- not because someone just said "hey, let's make another artificial lingo"- but because Esperantists treat the rules of their lingo like islamists treat Quran- as something perfect that cannot be changed.
You can remove the unwanted applications using CCleaner which is free for home use (although, you can pay if you wish).
there is no need to create MS account, everything works fine with a local one- unless you do have other devices running windows 10 (phone, xbox one etc) when having 1 account shared on all of them may be beneficial.
Slashdot Mirror
English may not be owned -- and that is really a problem, because it has no underlying logic
... and yet people use it, and have no problem with that. Somehow it's a language of choice for most who have to co-operate with people from other nations.
and grows in any direction, and eventually will lose its "language" characteristic -- but accessible to anyone it sure is not.
every language changes. Massive base of already produced text will be accessible for people using future variations of English.
Everyone who is well-versed in language learning frown at English,
elaborate
while all those who have a hard time will favor it -- either because it's already their first language or because they mistakenly think it is easier to learn just one additional one.
... or maybe because it is a quite easy to learn for (for at least B1/B2 level); it doesn't take a long time to speak communicative language. it's grammar is far easier than Spanish or Russian one.
There is not much sense in comparing Esperanto to English, such is the difference in complexity. Esperanto is like riding a tricycle, while English would be like using a competition motorcycle... it's great until you fall.
... or unless you actually want to read anything other than the language course- in that case Esperanto has absolutely nothing to offer, while there is a plethora of sources in English.
Inexperienced people can speak Esperanto, meanwhile skilled long time native English speakers sometimes fail at using it (as can be seen in lots of Youtube videos).
... can speak Esperanto with whom? There is hardly any speakers of it. And no, Esperanto's phonetics isn't really that easy for non-Europeans. While, I must admit, English orthography is a rather... peculiar (when compared to Esperanto or even Spanish), I must add that's using YT videos of someone mis-pronuncing words isn't really any proof. "Badly" (i.e. non conforming to the, loosely defined, standard) English is the most common English
Vocabulary? Ask the Japanese how easy is to adapt a new word from a foreign language.
no, it's not easy. Are you aware how hard was 'scientification' of Russian?
About the wider discussion, most scientific articles in English are junk, because of the use of US/Imperial units (feet, inches and other body parts). That is totally unscientific.
When I comment I try to show respect to my interlocutors, which of course mean that- even when I don't agree with them- I prefer not to use vulgar words. But forgive me, but your last quote is probably the most idiotic text i've read this weak.
>No they doesn't. Stop lying.
Which language hasn't changed for centuries and still is useful today? icelandic? nope latin? nope classical arabic? nope
Most people don't have English as a first language, so they cannot stick with it. A couple of Google searches say English native speakers are 4.4% of the world population (that is, a 0.04 share of the number of living people -- not exactly much, heh?). Google "number of native english speakers in world" and "world population 2018", if you don't believe me. We're talking native speakers here because you've mentioned not learning a second language.
... which still takes it to the top of the most commonly spoken languages. Moder Standard Arabic, or Chinese isn't "native" to most Arabs or Chinese, respectively. Beside- what's "native"? Is English "native" in Scandinavia, where it is spoken quite often "better" than in the UK? Beside- English is the one of very few (if not the only one) lingo which has more L2 speakers than L1. and the ratio is like 4:1 or more.
And why learn English in countries where you're exposed to e.g. French culture?
In these countries one learns French. Than one realizes that they are better off with English and learn it. Remember- we are talking about the scientific world. Like it or not, French is almost non-existent there.
>_ English ain't even English in reality, not a regional tongue but an assemblage of regional tongues, mainly European but as it spreads further gaining other words and continually changing.
there is Standard English, like it or not. French or German aren't "French and German in reality" they are- to a degree- constructed languages, taught at school as a part of unification of country. Regional dialects differ, quite a lot.
That's why it's not English and that's why English is not as important as you believe it to be.
It's unrelated to what you wrote before. And yeah, English is important.
For a while, French was the most used world language but its time passed...
Even in diplomacy, French was never even close as popular as English is in the sciences. Not even close. None language ever was- not Greek, not Arabic, not Classical Chinese nor Latin.
guess what will happen to English?
God thanks there is no Royal Academy for English, and English words (and syntax, and grammar) change their meaning over time (slowly). I don't have doubts that English still will be a leading lingo in sciences in 100 years or more. But it may be a different English to the one we use as a standard. Beside- one doesn't have to wait for that. Already European English differs a bit from the one used in the UK and USA.
What will be the next? Mandarin?
Most scientific journals in China are written in English (with Chinese regionalisms).
Japanese? Korean?
Why do you think any of those countries would become powerhouse for science? Why would you think other countries would accept these languages for using them in science?
I got no idea (but according to my daughter, Korean is easier).
script most certainly is.
I guess English will hold for a long time in certain niches, just like French is still important in diplomacy,
When the Chinese diplomats talk with German ones, do they speak French or English? When Argentinian one speaks with Greeks, do they use French or English? French still, obviously is somehow important- but apart from the former colonies it isn't really used that much in diplomacy. not anymore
but I think Esperanto would be a less painful way. I specially recommend it over English as a way to get a more faithful translation of works from most countries.
1. Esperanto is unchangeable, monolithic lingo and therefore unlikely to be accepted by anyone than its enthusiasts. 2. Esperanto is useless for science (and that's the use i'm mostly concerned about). Ido has shown it (but it's also useless now). 3. Esperanto's international vocabulary is a joke. If any of the non-ethnic languages would, somehow, dominate the scientific languages it would be the Interlingua
English is popular because of history of the last 70 years not because of a âoehuge vocabularyâ
English was used for science long before it become popular.
there are much older languages with a much richer vocabulary (and very long history in science) like Arabic for example.
what are arabic words for TV, hadron collider, epigenetics, stereochemistry etc? btw, while arabic was popular amongst the philosopher during the middle ages (much more than latin tbh), since the Renneisance Arab speaking word ceased to produce anything worthy. How many Nobel Prize winners are Arabs?
English didnâ(TM)t even exist yet when they were doing science in Arabic.
and yet pretty much all the science is done in English now, for hundreds of years almost none done in Arabic. funny, innit?
I wouldnâ(TM)t say English has a particularly rich vocabulary in fact most of its scientific vocabulary comes from Latin
there is more words in English of greco-latin origin than there were words in ancient greek (not surprisingly, we know now a bit more).
you bet me to it.
"The assembled rocket weighed a mere 2600 kilograms [2.87 tons]" You meant 2600kg = 2.6 ton, clearly?
Tea in Polish is "Herbata" from Latin Herba Thea
is it worth the detour if the goal is to learn English? Probably not.
The data says Hungarian, Russian, and French people who spend four years studying Esperanto (1 year) and a third language (3 years) all learn the third language to greater proficiency than if they spent all four years studying only the target language.
I would say 110% is more than 100% and thus worth the detour when the total resource (time) investment is the same. In this case, it's more like 210%, because you also picked up Esperanto along the way, for whatever that's worth.
what data? link to the peer review study, please.
Latin with grammar taked out. Lame.
you mean Interlingua?
Interlingua is primarily a written language (so, de facto, is Esperanto)- in that case pronunciation isn't really that big obstacle (for non-romance speakers). But pronunciation (when the spoken lingo is used) has an advantage- it's familiar to the languages from which Interlingua is derivated- therefore it could be understood easily(-ish) by them (similar to what happens with written lingo- it's understood easily(-ish) by English, Spanish, Portugese, Italian speakers). Orthography is also not that bad- it follows the way the words are written in control languages, thus making it (i.e. the words) easily recognisible.
believe me- the French grammar is not treated by the French Academy as religiously like Esperanto's grammar by Esperantists- it's not about the "language loosing it's soul" (or, rather opposing the anglicizing of it) but it's more like the religion. And yeah, I'm aware of Esperanto's grammar- in fact it was my first artificial language (ages ago). then i've moved to Ido, then to Interlingua. On the end I've settled up for English- despite its idiotic spelling and pronunciation it's probably the most useful auxiliary language (after all, there is few times more non-native speakers than natives).
First: There is no cyrillic in Esperanto. Secondly: Its grammar is much simpler than the grammar of most "natural" languages. Thirdly: Even more simplified grammar, without the non-standard letters and with less obscure vocabulary is called "Ido". There was, just over a hundred ago, a rather big schism, and Ido (AKA Reformed Esperanto) was born- not because someone just said "hey, let's make another artificial lingo"- but because Esperantists treat the rules of their lingo like islamists treat Quran- as something perfect that cannot be changed.
You can remove the unwanted applications using CCleaner which is free for home use (although, you can pay if you wish). there is no need to create MS account, everything works fine with a local one- unless you do have other devices running windows 10 (phone, xbox one etc) when having 1 account shared on all of them may be beneficial.