We will speak to the world, but in English
Mishaal Al Gergawi
- Last Updated: July 03. 2008 10:34PM UAE / July 3. 2008 6:34PM GMT
I was in Istanbul last weekend for a wedding and had some time to wander the streets. I was struck with a barrier similar to the one I felt in Shanghai last March: no one spoke English. I found a wonderful studio and all I received was smiles – barring the token foreign educated young lady working on her Mac on a ping-pong table converted into a desk, who spoke with such a distinct American accent that she could have been in Brooklyn.
I told my friend Claudia how inaccessible Turkey’s culture was to me and she said: “For contemporary culture to be reachable we must all speak English and this will destroy all non-English cultures. Do I like it? No. Do I think it’s inevitable? Yes.”
I hated her prophecy but then I couldn’t speak to anyone from town barring the random overzealous expatriate there. Turkey’s culture was inaccessible to me for exactly that reason. I didn’t speak Turkish and the people I wanted to speak to didn’t speak Arabic or English. How simple and magnificent of a divide – you can look into a person’s sincere eyes yet only glimpse hints of stories that you want to hear. Stories that could only be whispered in ears and discussed in speakeasies.
For a moment I thought what a luxury it is that I come from a town where everyone speaks the international language and almost simultaneously I thought that the cultivation of contemporary thoughts and ideas was in extreme opposition to the preservation of ethnic cultures! This is a fact that puts us in a very difficult situation. We have always been taught that those who don’t have a past will not have a present or a future, but this is the 21st century and it is always cited that India will always have the English advantage – as it is referred to – over China. Will Emirati art appear regularly in Art Basel if we begin to discuss it in English? Must we accept congratulations for the first Emirati feature film worthy of being shown in Cannes in English? I don’t know. This is the first piece I’ve written here where I don’t have a strong view about the subject and I feel that I don’t want to decide just yet. It’s too early.
All the people who will curate our museums and attend our galleries, buy our art and watch our films, read our books and critique them – will they do so in Arabic? What is the future of all languages and cultures? Will we all become progressive and unbiased, open minded and politically correct unilingual-speakers? Never has ugly seemed so logical. Never has logic seemed so ugly. Never have both been so inevitably intertwined.
Some of you will call me a pessimist, a defeatist even. Others will describe me as dispassionately practical. I’m not writing this to learn more about myself, I am writing this to look for a glimpse of the future in the present. These are good times but even good times have a price and perhaps we are already paying the interest but just don’t check our bank statements carefully.
Interest is compounding and so is culture and identity. We will all disagree with this notion of paying the price for our loss of language in order to be more accessible to the world. We’ll all speak of how beautiful our language is, how English does not encompass all that our beautiful language does and how it will always be the master of poetic verse. This is all true but everything goes with time. The worse thing about being in a tornado is that you don’t feel it. We think we can be contemporary and preserve our language. We think we’re going to bring Arabic back with our “Desert Renaissance”. We think that because we translated Greek to Latin through Arabic in our past, that we will do such things again. Well there is a reason why Esperanto failed – it is not as simple as English. English will outlive the United States and other English-speaking countries. The Chinese, South Americans and eastern Europeans will all learn English if they want to conduct international trade, and with little difficulty I might add.
We will reach the world and the world will reach us, we will like them and they will like us, and we will influence their thoughts as they will influence ours but in English…only in English.
Mishaal Al Gergawi is a graduate of the American University in Dubai and the CERAM European School of Business
One and a half year's later, and I'm still waiting to learn why so few people in the Islamic, or Arabic-speaking world (I know they are not synonymous!) know anything about Esperanto. Could it have anything to do with what I recently learned from the BBC, i.e. that less than 2% of people in the Arabic-speaking world read even one book per year. Surely that can't be true?!
>I am native Arabic speaker and would like to stay that way but just find the odds against me.
Good for you - that's the way it should be! But stand up for your equal language rights. What I find so difficult to understand is why non-native English-speakers are not fighting harder for them. Most seem to have accepted that it is not possible to change the present linguistic situation. Your UAE govt. seems to have bought into the English language hook, line and sinker. Why are you all so ready to grant me (and mine) the dominant linguistic position? I don't want to impose my language on you or dominate you, nor do I necessarily want to have to speak your language. Can't we meet somewhere in the middle and speak OUR interlanguage, an easier non-ethnic one? It can be done, and people are doing it. Why not there too?
>There is a difference between what you want to happen and what you believe will irrespectively happen.
There most certainly is - the difference between the preservation of the world's linguistic diversity, and ultimately world pidgin English for all. Salaam!
Brian,
Thanks for you comments. I'm not sure where you found trace in my comments and piece before that that I actually find it a good thing that we're all going to speak English? I am native Arabic speaker and would like to stay that way but just find the odds against me.
There is a difference between what you want to happen and what you believe will irrespectively happen.
Mishaal
Thanks for your further comments - even the 'xenophobic' and 'evangelical' bits! You are of course right about the ratio of users of English to users of Esperanto, but I think your ideas of English dominance are unduly rosy, and you seem to see English hegemony as only a Good Thing. The dominance of one ethnic language is already having serious effects. You surely must be aware of Unesco's predictions of language loss over the next 100 years and the consequent loss of indigenous languages worldwide:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A12645939
My own Celtic language has already been one of the victims.
And are you not bothered by the privileged position of native English-speakers in the modern world, or the fact that very few English-speaking youngsters need to spend any time learning any second language at all these days? Does blatant linguistic colonialism such as Gordon Brown's recent web bid to boost English:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7193681.stm
not disturb you in the least? Even in Canada there are people who will speak English only as a very last resort. You may not be around to see it yourself, but later generations may come to see world English as a Trojan Horse.
And what about equal language rights for all, and the discriminatory nature of antidemocratic language policies in international organizations - all pay but only speakers of the official languages reap the benefits? Mightn't a non-ethnic interlanguage have a role to play here somewhere?
"Well there is a reason why Esperanto failed – it is not as simple as English"
Please tell me you tried to learn Esperanto and that's why you say that. Because otherwise, it's really unfair to comment about something without knowing it.
I've been learning English for the past 10 years and Esperanto for only 3 years, and I'm not half as fluent in English as in Esperanto.
You are all right, esperanto may be easier to learn in a world that supports newly developed international languages. But gentlemen, the English language is no longer owned by the English. Statements equating English becoming the lingua franca of the world to Anglo-Saxon hegemony are xenophobic. In the end, English will prevail because it has the momentum and that's why its simpler to learn. When you learn English it opens doors of communication with much more than the 1 - 2 million "professionally proficient" speakers of Esperanto according to Sidney Culbert. Sure we could spend millions for the sake of developing world wide programs to teach Esperanto to everyone, but are we really going to do that? If Esperanto with its simple structure as you all correctly correct me has failed to become a significant languages then who really has a chance? Population of the world is 6.4 billion. That's 0.031% proficient Esperanto speakers at best.
Also, I hope that I'm wrong. Not about who will win English or Esperanto, it is about my impression of English's dominance in international contemporary culture.
I acknowledge and apologize for my assumption that linguistically, grammatically and phonetically English is simpler than Esperanto but I do not believe that this deals a blow to my argument of the inability to get exposure to contemporary ideas in arts and culture without English, especially in the Middle East where Westernization, Globalisation and Modern identity are often confused and used interchangeably.
Hope you guys get worked up about my other stuff just as much - this evangelical defence of a language that has failed to be adopted by a significant minority of the world's population after 121 years of its promise and struggle is proof that romantic excursions are just that.
Thank you for your comments,
Mishaal
I think this is only piece Mishaal Gergawi has written that I disagree with.
Firstly, 'International' English (which incidentally is becoming a language with characteristics very distinct from 'native' English) is normally confined to a minority. All countries have English speaking international representatives, but the majority conduct the real debates in their own language. I think Mishaal under-estimates the resilience of other languages and completely overestimates the depth of English penetration internationally. Many study it at school but only a minority will speak it and use it on a regular basis in their lifetimes. A good example of this is Japan where it remains difficult to live for long without Japanese and outside of the major cities forget it! Mishaal’s Turkish experience only underlines this point.
Language and culture are inextricably linked and different languages throw up all sorts of different intellectual and emotional nuances. I love the fact that Greek philosophy came via Arabic and Latin and have often wondered how the different sensibilities of each language the text passed through contributed to the meaning of the text that I eventually read.
Like India the English advantage is also a feature of Gulf States. However, when Mishaal talks about the discussion of Emirati art in English he seems to be referring exclusively to the international arena. If the only target market is English speaking then of course you will be curated, bought, sold, read and criticized in that language. However, can an internal debate about Emirati forms of creative expression really be conducted in English? I have met several local artists whose level of English will effectively exclude them from the debate if that is the case.
I acknowledge, that I may have misunderstood some of the points Mishaal was making despite the fact we apparently speak the same language. This does not suggest to me that harmonious uni-lingualism will be triumphant any time soon!
1. Logic is so logic, natural and..inevitable. If we have two sets who wish to be linked then they should use a common language of communication. The easier, more expressive, more flexible one will be naturally selected. We decided to establish links with the rest of the globe, for smooth flow of trade, ideas, knowledge and cultures.
2. Language is dynamic. It has been dynamic since the dawn of humanity. We use it to express meanings and it is transmitted through generations. Each generation can develop it further to match its needs and dynamics of environment. It is just counter-intuitive to hold it static in a glass container. It is just un-natural.
3.Language is just one parameter of national identity, but it is not, and shall not be, the only parameter of identity. It is as if we reduce all the senses of a human being into one sense. Identity derives language rather than the other way around.
I'm not sure it is a good Idea to dismiss Esperanto too quickly.
If English is the international language, why for example did nine British MP's nominate Esperanto for the Nobel Peace Prize 2008.
You can see detail on http://www.lernu.net
Hello, you claim that "Well there is a reason why Esperanto failed – it is not as simple as English". This is absurd. Do you know what are you speaking about? Esperanto is much easier than English. The reason why English dominates it the power of the ex-British Empire and of the USA. For this reason it is not a lingua franca. It is the language of the Anglo-Saxon world, the language through which these countries spread they culture and interests. English is THEIR language, and it always will be. Accepting English amounts to accepting the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon world.
New bus system is very helpful for all the people especially the low income group.
I am surprised at the article's unsupported (and quite false) assertion "Well there is a reason why Esperanto failed – it is not as simple as English." Evidently the author has not looked at Esperanto.
1. Esperanto's spelling matches the pronunciation of its words very phonetically, more than most national languages, and certainly more than English, which is particularly notorious. (Consider the "ough" in tough, though, through, thought...)
2. Esperanto's grammar is quite simple and elegant. There are no irregular nouns or verbs, unlike English and other national languages. The rules of conjugation and declination are simple and consistent and easily learned in a short while.
3. Esperanto uses a system of compound words from simple basic roots, so that one learns, e.g., "kuiri" is to cook, and "ejo" is a location, so "kuirejo" is a kitchen, and "isto" is a person who specializes in something so "kuiristo" is a chef, instead of having to memorize many more basic words with no obvious semantic connection, e.g. "cook" and "kitchen" and "chef".
4. Esperanto has a consistent pronunciation style for where the accent falls in a word. Compare that to English (where do you accent "photograph", "photographer", "photography"; "we must reCORD a REcord", "we must proGRESS to make PROgress", etc.)
Apparently unlike the article's author, I have spoken to plenty of people who have learned both Esperanto and English (some of whom have English as a first language, and some who have learned it later in life), and every one of them agrees Esperanto is certainly simpler than English. I'm a native English speaker, and I can tell you with certainty that Esperanto is a much simpler, nicer, more elegant and easily learned language. So it would be good to do a little basic research before making such uninformed assertions about which language is simpler...
The reasons for English's popularity compared to Esperanto have nothing to do with which language is simpler to learn and everything to do with economic power. It is generally considered that one needs English to succeed financially in today's world, and so people feel pressure to learn it. And so the rich get richer: as more and more people learn English, English becomes more important. And those who are native speakers will always have the upper hand, because learning to speak English excellently is not at all easy, and most non-native speakers will always be instantly recognizable as such.
Apparently the author thinks English is easier than Esperanto simply because he has learned the one and not the other. Granted, English is the de facto international language for commerce, tourism, and science but it is spoken and written with difficulty and not well by most of the people who are not born into it, and its growth contributes to the diminution of diversity in languages worldwide, since many have no economic power, and will be plowed under. Esperanto prevents that by providing an easier language that is politically neutral and ultimately an economic boon that serves to engage all peoples without favoring any one in particular. --JL
For the millions of people who have used Esperanto, the thousands who died for doing so under Hitler and Stalin, Esperanto remains the language of choice for international communication. Nothing is better than meeting a foreigner as an egual. This happens daily for myself, on-line, and in my meetings with Esperanto speakers, in over 30 countries such as Brazil, Czech Republic, Egypt, Palestine and Israel. Neil Blonstein
Pardon me for being confused: but you went to Turkey, nobody spoke English and yet you insist that English is the international language. I believe that a reality check is in order here. Your misinformed assertion that English is easier than Esperanto is easily refuted. Esperanto doesn't have a single irregular verb. It is generally accepted by linguists that Esperanto is 5 to 10 times easier to learn than any national language. A quick look at www.lernu.net will convince you of that fact.
There's nothing wrong with English, I am not sure that it is as widespread or useful as people claim. I would like to argue the case for Esperanto as the international language. This is a planned language which belongs to no one country or group of states. Take a look at www.esperanto.net
Esperanto works! I've used it in speech and writing in a dozen countries over recent years.
>Well there is a reason why Esperanto failed – it is not as simple as English.
I'm a native speaker of English and have spoken Esperanto for 50+ years and use it almost every day - I beg to differ with Mishaal Al Gergawi's 'analysis'. Esperanto has not failed, and it is indeed much simpler than English - it works perfectly wherever it has been tried, notably at the annual World Esperanto Congresses which attract 2000+ participants from 55+ countries, and in daily Esperanto broadcasts from i.a. Radio Polonia:
http://www.polskieradio.pl/eo/
Perhaps he should do his homework and look into 'universal bilingualism' [YOUR language + Esperanto for all] in preference to supporting English-language world hegemony and the consequent destruction of smaller languages and cultures, as he seems to be intent on doing. What is really curious is that the seven points of the Prague Manifesto:
http://lingvo.org
seem to have made so little headway in the Islamic world. Perhaps he could shed some light on that for us?
Added: 01/09/10 10:17:00 AM
One and a half year's later, and I'm still waiting to learn why so few people in the Islamic, or Arabic-speaking world (I know they are not synonymous!) know anything about Esperanto. Could it have anything to do with what I recently learned from the BBC, i.e. that less than 2% of people in the Arabic-speaking world read even one book per year. Surely that can't be true?!
Brian Ó CainÃn, Vancouver
Added: 07/08/08 09:05:00 AM
>I am native Arabic speaker and would like to stay that way but just find the odds against me.
Good for you - that's the way it should be! But stand up for your equal language rights. What I find so difficult to understand is why non-native English-speakers are not fighting harder for them. Most seem to have accepted that it is not possible to change the present linguistic situation. Your UAE govt. seems to have bought into the English language hook, line and sinker. Why are you all so ready to grant me (and mine) the dominant linguistic position? I don't want to impose my language on you or dominate you, nor do I necessarily want to have to speak your language. Can't we meet somewhere in the middle and speak OUR interlanguage, an easier non-ethnic one? It can be done, and people are doing it. Why not there too?
>There is a difference between what you want to happen and what you believe will irrespectively happen.
There most certainly is - the difference between the preservation of the world's linguistic diversity, and ultimately world pidgin English for all. Salaam!
Brian Ó Cainín
Added: 07/07/08 11:47:00 AM
Brian,
Thanks for you comments. I'm not sure where you found trace in my comments and piece before that that I actually find it a good thing that we're all going to speak English? I am native Arabic speaker and would like to stay that way but just find the odds against me.
There is a difference between what you want to happen and what you believe will irrespectively happen.
Mishaal
Mishaal Al Gergawi
Added: 07/07/08 06:52:00 AM
Thanks for your further comments - even the 'xenophobic' and 'evangelical' bits! You are of course right about the ratio of users of English to users of Esperanto, but I think your ideas of English dominance are unduly rosy, and you seem to see English hegemony as only a Good Thing. The dominance of one ethnic language is already having serious effects. You surely must be aware of Unesco's predictions of language loss over the next 100 years and the consequent loss of indigenous languages worldwide:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A12645939
My own Celtic language has already been one of the victims.
And are you not bothered by the privileged position of native English-speakers in the modern world, or the fact that very few English-speaking youngsters need to spend any time learning any second language at all these days? Does blatant linguistic colonialism such as Gordon Brown's recent web bid to boost English:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7193681.stm
not disturb you in the least? Even in Canada there are people who will speak English only as a very last resort. You may not be around to see it yourself, but later generations may come to see world English as a Trojan Horse.
And what about equal language rights for all, and the discriminatory nature of antidemocratic language policies in international organizations - all pay but only speakers of the official languages reap the benefits? Mightn't a non-ethnic interlanguage have a role to play here somewhere?
Brian Ó Cainín
Added: 07/06/08 12:45:00 AM
"Well there is a reason why Esperanto failed – it is not as simple as English"
Please tell me you tried to learn Esperanto and that's why you say that. Because otherwise, it's really unfair to comment about something without knowing it.
I've been learning English for the past 10 years and Esperanto for only 3 years, and I'm not half as fluent in English as in Esperanto.
(Anonymous)
Added: 07/05/08 12:57:00 PM
You are all right, esperanto may be easier to learn in a world that supports newly developed international languages. But gentlemen, the English language is no longer owned by the English. Statements equating English becoming the lingua franca of the world to Anglo-Saxon hegemony are xenophobic. In the end, English will prevail because it has the momentum and that's why its simpler to learn. When you learn English it opens doors of communication with much more than the 1 - 2 million "professionally proficient" speakers of Esperanto according to Sidney Culbert. Sure we could spend millions for the sake of developing world wide programs to teach Esperanto to everyone, but are we really going to do that? If Esperanto with its simple structure as you all correctly correct me has failed to become a significant languages then who really has a chance? Population of the world is 6.4 billion. That's 0.031% proficient Esperanto speakers at best.
Also, I hope that I'm wrong. Not about who will win English or Esperanto, it is about my impression of English's dominance in international contemporary culture.
I acknowledge and apologize for my assumption that linguistically, grammatically and phonetically English is simpler than Esperanto but I do not believe that this deals a blow to my argument of the inability to get exposure to contemporary ideas in arts and culture without English, especially in the Middle East where Westernization, Globalisation and Modern identity are often confused and used interchangeably.
Hope you guys get worked up about my other stuff just as much - this evangelical defence of a language that has failed to be adopted by a significant minority of the world's population after 121 years of its promise and struggle is proof that romantic excursions are just that.
Thank you for your comments,
Mishaal
Mishaal Al Gergawi
Added: 07/05/08 12:23:00 PM
I think this is only piece Mishaal Gergawi has written that I disagree with.
Firstly, 'International' English (which incidentally is becoming a language with characteristics very distinct from 'native' English) is normally confined to a minority. All countries have English speaking international representatives, but the majority conduct the real debates in their own language. I think Mishaal under-estimates the resilience of other languages and completely overestimates the depth of English penetration internationally. Many study it at school but only a minority will speak it and use it on a regular basis in their lifetimes. A good example of this is Japan where it remains difficult to live for long without Japanese and outside of the major cities forget it! Mishaal’s Turkish experience only underlines this point.
Language and culture are inextricably linked and different languages throw up all sorts of different intellectual and emotional nuances. I love the fact that Greek philosophy came via Arabic and Latin and have often wondered how the different sensibilities of each language the text passed through contributed to the meaning of the text that I eventually read.
Like India the English advantage is also a feature of Gulf States. However, when Mishaal talks about the discussion of Emirati art in English he seems to be referring exclusively to the international arena. If the only target market is English speaking then of course you will be curated, bought, sold, read and criticized in that language. However, can an internal debate about Emirati forms of creative expression really be conducted in English? I have met several local artists whose level of English will effectively exclude them from the debate if that is the case.
I acknowledge, that I may have misunderstood some of the points Mishaal was making despite the fact we apparently speak the same language. This does not suggest to me that harmonious uni-lingualism will be triumphant any time soon!
Valerie Grove
Added: 07/05/08 11:58:00 AM
1. Logic is so logic, natural and..inevitable. If we have two sets who wish to be linked then they should use a common language of communication. The easier, more expressive, more flexible one will be naturally selected. We decided to establish links with the rest of the globe, for smooth flow of trade, ideas, knowledge and cultures.
2. Language is dynamic. It has been dynamic since the dawn of humanity. We use it to express meanings and it is transmitted through generations. Each generation can develop it further to match its needs and dynamics of environment. It is just counter-intuitive to hold it static in a glass container. It is just un-natural.
3.Language is just one parameter of national identity, but it is not, and shall not be, the only parameter of identity. It is as if we reduce all the senses of a human being into one sense. Identity derives language rather than the other way around.
(Anonymous)
Added: 07/04/08 12:56:00 PM
I'm not sure it is a good Idea to dismiss Esperanto too quickly.
If English is the international language, why for example did nine British MP's nominate Esperanto for the Nobel Peace Prize 2008.
You can see detail on http://www.lernu.net
Brian Barker
Added: 07/04/08 12:11:00 PM
Hello, you claim that "Well there is a reason why Esperanto failed – it is not as simple as English". This is absurd. Do you know what are you speaking about? Esperanto is much easier than English. The reason why English dominates it the power of the ex-British Empire and of the USA. For this reason it is not a lingua franca. It is the language of the Anglo-Saxon world, the language through which these countries spread they culture and interests. English is THEIR language, and it always will be. Accepting English amounts to accepting the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon world.
Fulvio Volpe
Added: 07/04/08 09:23:00 AM
New bus system is very helpful for all the people especially the low income group.
Egbert Thomas
Added: 07/04/08 08:52:00 AM
I am surprised at the article's unsupported (and quite false) assertion "Well there is a reason why Esperanto failed – it is not as simple as English." Evidently the author has not looked at Esperanto.
1. Esperanto's spelling matches the pronunciation of its words very phonetically, more than most national languages, and certainly more than English, which is particularly notorious. (Consider the "ough" in tough, though, through, thought...)
2. Esperanto's grammar is quite simple and elegant. There are no irregular nouns or verbs, unlike English and other national languages. The rules of conjugation and declination are simple and consistent and easily learned in a short while.
3. Esperanto uses a system of compound words from simple basic roots, so that one learns, e.g., "kuiri" is to cook, and "ejo" is a location, so "kuirejo" is a kitchen, and "isto" is a person who specializes in something so "kuiristo" is a chef, instead of having to memorize many more basic words with no obvious semantic connection, e.g. "cook" and "kitchen" and "chef".
4. Esperanto has a consistent pronunciation style for where the accent falls in a word. Compare that to English (where do you accent "photograph", "photographer", "photography"; "we must reCORD a REcord", "we must proGRESS to make PROgress", etc.)
Apparently unlike the article's author, I have spoken to plenty of people who have learned both Esperanto and English (some of whom have English as a first language, and some who have learned it later in life), and every one of them agrees Esperanto is certainly simpler than English. I'm a native English speaker, and I can tell you with certainty that Esperanto is a much simpler, nicer, more elegant and easily learned language. So it would be good to do a little basic research before making such uninformed assertions about which language is simpler...
The reasons for English's popularity compared to Esperanto have nothing to do with which language is simpler to learn and everything to do with economic power. It is generally considered that one needs English to succeed financially in today's world, and so people feel pressure to learn it. And so the rich get richer: as more and more people learn English, English becomes more important. And those who are native speakers will always have the upper hand, because learning to speak English excellently is not at all easy, and most non-native speakers will always be instantly recognizable as such.
(Anonymous)
Added: 07/04/08 03:55:00 AM
Apparently the author thinks English is easier than Esperanto simply because he has learned the one and not the other. Granted, English is the de facto international language for commerce, tourism, and science but it is spoken and written with difficulty and not well by most of the people who are not born into it, and its growth contributes to the diminution of diversity in languages worldwide, since many have no economic power, and will be plowed under. Esperanto prevents that by providing an easier language that is politically neutral and ultimately an economic boon that serves to engage all peoples without favoring any one in particular. --JL
(Anonymous)
Added: 07/04/08 03:40:00 AM
For the millions of people who have used Esperanto, the thousands who died for doing so under Hitler and Stalin, Esperanto remains the language of choice for international communication. Nothing is better than meeting a foreigner as an egual. This happens daily for myself, on-line, and in my meetings with Esperanto speakers, in over 30 countries such as Brazil, Czech Republic, Egypt, Palestine and Israel. Neil Blonstein
Neil Blonstein
Added: 07/04/08 02:56:00 AM
Pardon me for being confused: but you went to Turkey, nobody spoke English and yet you insist that English is the international language. I believe that a reality check is in order here. Your misinformed assertion that English is easier than Esperanto is easily refuted. Esperanto doesn't have a single irregular verb. It is generally accepted by linguists that Esperanto is 5 to 10 times easier to learn than any national language. A quick look at www.lernu.net will convince you of that fact.
Detlef Karthaus
Added: 07/04/08 02:39:00 AM
There's nothing wrong with English, I am not sure that it is as widespread or useful as people claim. I would like to argue the case for Esperanto as the international language. This is a planned language which belongs to no one country or group of states. Take a look at www.esperanto.net
Esperanto works! I've used it in speech and writing in a dozen countries over recent years.
(Anonymous)
Added: 07/04/08 02:35:00 AM
>Well there is a reason why Esperanto failed – it is not as simple as English.
I'm a native speaker of English and have spoken Esperanto for 50+ years and use it almost every day - I beg to differ with Mishaal Al Gergawi's 'analysis'. Esperanto has not failed, and it is indeed much simpler than English - it works perfectly wherever it has been tried, notably at the annual World Esperanto Congresses which attract 2000+ participants from 55+ countries, and in daily Esperanto broadcasts from i.a. Radio Polonia:
http://www.polskieradio.pl/eo/
Perhaps he should do his homework and look into 'universal bilingualism' [YOUR language + Esperanto for all] in preference to supporting English-language world hegemony and the consequent destruction of smaller languages and cultures, as he seems to be intent on doing. What is really curious is that the seven points of the Prague Manifesto:
http://lingvo.org
seem to have made so little headway in the Islamic world. Perhaps he could shed some light on that for us?
Brian Ó Cainín