From: gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis)
Subject: Re: English OR Esperanto?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:23:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.124449.7424@sunic.sunet.se> eric@sejnet.sunet.se writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.210006.21678@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis) writes...
>>   In one or the other way, all the advanced languages initially were 
>>   artificial creations of the bureaucratic elites to facilitate the 
>>   large scale transactions.
>
>Is that what they teach kids in US schools? :-) Damn. I didn't know the Greeks
>and Romans had a bureaucracy that took care of teaching the language of their
>choice to the masses. Learn a new thing every day.


Obviousely you didn't know it, but that's the truth.

  Ancient Greek: Initially was a group of very poor related languages.
                 Mycenae's central bureaucracy forces the establishment
                 of a more elaborate advaned language.
                 Athenian's economic and military superiority forced the
                 adoption of the Classical language to many other states.
                 Macedonian's military expansion forced the almost whole
                 then known world to adopt the Hellenistic language.

 Roman Language: Initially a very poor language. Adopted heavily many
                 Ancient Greek elements gradually, but as the state and
                 the followed bureaucracy expanded then an advanced and
                 elegant version was cultivated and forced by the central
                 government.

 I know that very similar things happened to English, Modern German,
 Arabic, Chinese, Persian.

 I don't know about all the languages separately, but I suspect that
 that's the case always for any advanced language.

>
>>   I would propose that all the EU states adopt the policy of teaching
>>   both English and Esperanto as foreign languages obligatorily.
>
>Ah yes, a good dictatorship is the way to go. I'm sure people in, say, Ticino,
>will be delighted to learn that, in addition to having to learn German because
>that's what the industry of their country is based on, and English because it's
>the international business language, they have to learn Esperanto for
>pseudo-religious reasons.


Look at the example of the US. The vast majority of the people
initially were speaking other languages. What the bureaucracy
chose as its language, then this became gradually the spoken one.


>>   An absolute prerequisite for starting this programm will be 
>>   securing the required long term commitement from the participating
>>   people as a whole, which can only be realized by a strong central
>>   government committed to this goal.
>
>Ah, finally something I can agree with :-) Yes, beyond any doubt, the only
>means of securing the long term commitment of the masses towards such a stupid
>project is some variation of dictatorship. Let's face it, the masses are
>already hostile to the idea of learning English; if you want them, in addition,
>to learn an artificial language which the older generations don't know and will
>never learn, you are going to need a lot of luck :-)
>
>  Eric


I personally don't care if English or Esperanto will be the common
language of European bureaucracy (and if the political structure
survives long enough most probably the only spoken language...).
But I do care about the desperate need for a common language at
the administration level.
I can possibly conceive that the intraeuropean competition of the
local cultures can be compromised in the adoption of a gradually
growing, neutral, new paneuropean culture (including the language :-)).


Gregory Dandulakis
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:3717 alt.usage.english:3011