From: DWOLFF@RES-C4.PRime.COM
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: Re: KIOM DA ESPERANTISTOJ
Date: 20 Jan 93 22:31:53 GMT
Organization: Esperanto News Gateway
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cobra.jpl.nasa.gov

Barry Crown skribas dulingve:

> (An English translation of this article - "How Many Esperantists?" - appears
> below.)
>
> David Wolff skribas:
> >
> >Mi pardonpetas, mi ne vidis en via afis^o kiel MacGill atingis sian
> >takson.  Mi vidis nur tabelon de liaj taksoj lau~ lando, sen detaloj pri
> >kiel li trovis tiujn taksojn.  C^u mi fus^legis g^in?
>
> Mi bedau^ras ke mi ne esprimis min sufic^e bone.  Mi volis diri ke ni
> povas kontroli la ciferojn de MacGill c^ar li donas ilin por c^iu mondparto.
> Mi estas certa ke aktiva Esperantisto en Germanio povas bone taksi
> la nombron da Esperantistoj en Germanio, sed li eble havas neniun ideon
> pri la nombro da Esperantistoj en C^inio.  Tamen, d-ro Culbert donas
> al ni unu ciferon por la tuta terglobo, kiun ni ne povas kontroli.

Bedau~rinde, la World Almanac artikolo de D-ro Culbert temis pri c^iuj
lingvoj de la mondo.  Mi ne komprenas, kiel tiu libro ne volis plenajn
detalojn pri Esperanto :-).  Ankau~ bedau~rinde, D-ro Culbert ne
publikigis akademian artikolon pri siaj metodoj, sed se oni petos al li,
eble li priskribos siajn metodojn plue.

Parenteze, se la ciferoj de D-ro Culbert pri aliaj lingvoj estas
pli-malpli g^ustaj, vers^ajne liaj ciferoj pri Esperanto estas fideblaj.
C^u iu scias precize kiom da personoj parolas Telugu, Tagalog, Thai, ktp?
(Ho jes: ":-) :-)")

> >Vi efektive diras ke D-ro Culbert eble mensogis.  S^ajnas al mi nejusta
> >diri tion se vi ne prezentas ian ajn pruvon.
>
> Mi certe ne diris ke li mensogis kaj mi ec^ ne pensas tion.  Mi diris ke
> li troigas kaj mi donis ekzemplojn elc^erpitaj el la letero kiun
> vi afis^is c^i tie.

Mi pardonpetas.  Mi vidis nur dubojn pri eblaj troigoj, sen pruvaj^on,
sed mi uzis tro fortan vorton.

Kompreneble, *iu* devas esti la plej sciplena persono pri c^i-tiu temo. La
World Almanac evidente akceptis D-ro Culbert kiel ia spertulo, do s^ajnas
al mi, ke lia kalkulo vers^ajne estas fidebla.

> >Tamen, la taksoj de S-ro MacGill kaj D-ro Culbert estas sufic^e proksima.
> >Oni devas suspekti ke la nombro de Esperantistoj -- tiuj kiuj parolas la
> >lingvon -- estas super 500,000 kaj sub, ni diru, 5,000,000.
>
> Tamen la cifero de unu miliono da Esperantistoj kiun donas MacGill estas
> bazita sur la supozo ke estas duon-miliono da Esperantistoj en C^inio.  HAO
> Weining, c^ina aktivulo, diras ke estas malpli ol mil Esperantistoj en
> C^inio.  Se li pravas, estas maksimume 500,000 E-istoj en la mondo lau^ la
> kalkuloj de MacGill.  Tamen mi jam skribis ke mi suspektas ke liaj kalkuloj
> por aliaj mondpartoj estas ankau^ troigitaj.  Kiom da Esperantistoj estas en
> C^inio lau^ la kalkuloj de d-ro Culbert?

Mi ne scias, sed pro tio li altigis sian takson de unu g^is du milionoj.
Tamen, s^ajnas al mi, ke "takso" sen zorga esploro, ec^ per persono kiu
log^as en la lando, estas malpli fidebla ol takso-per-esploro.  Ekzemple,
mi enestas la usona movado dum multaj jaroj, laboras en la landa organizo,
c^eestis landajn kongresojn ktp... sed ec^ mi ne fidus mian takson de la
nombro da usonaj Esperantistoj, c^ar tie mi estas preskau~ senfakta.

(Mi devas korekti unu eraron de mia.  Mi diris, ke D-ro Culbert diris, ke
sia kalkulo estis "plus au~ minus unu miliono."  Fakte, kiel Derek Roff
rememorigis min, li diris "g^is plej proksima miliono", do fakte
plus-minus duon-miliono.  Tio ankorau~ s^ajnas en la sama pilkludejo kiel
la MacGilla takso.)

Alia ebleco por la diferenco (krom nesufic^a studo de la afero) estas, ke
oni difinas "parolas" malsame.  D-ro Culbert uzas US Foreign Service
(Fremda Servo) nivelo 3 (0 = tute ne parolas, 3 = povas fari demandojn,
kaj respondi al demandojn, per plenaj frazoj, 5 = tute flua).

Bedau~rinde (au~ bons^ance!), mi tute ne havas pli da *faktojn*, do
vers^ajne mi ne afis^os plu pri la temo.

> Barry
> LAWCROWN@NUSVM.BITNET

===============================================================

Barry Crown writes:

> David Wolff writes:
> >
> >I beg your pardon, I didn't see how MacGill reached his estimate in your
> >posting.  All I saw was a breakdown of his estimates by country, without
> >any details of how these estimates were derived.  Did I miss this?
> >
> I'm sorry.  I may not have expressed myself very well.  What I meant to say
> was that we can check MacGill's figures because he gives them separately
> for each part of the world.  I am quite sure that a German Esperantist, who is
> active in the Esperanto movement in his country, will have a good idea how
> many Esperantists there are in Germany.  He may  have no idea at all how many
> Esperantists there are in China.  However, Dr. Culbert simply gives one global
> figure for the whole world.

Unfortunately Dr. Culbert's article in the World Almanac is about all
languages of the world.  I fail to understand why the Almanac didn't print
all the details about Esperanto :-).  Also unfortunately, Dr. Culbert has
not published any academic articles about his methods, but if someone
asked him, perhaps he'd describe his methodology in more detail.

Parenthetically, if Dr. Culbert's numbers for other languages are more or
less correct, then probably his numbers for Esperanto are trustworthy.
Does anyone know exactly how many people speak Telugu, Tagalog, Thai, etc?
(Oh yeah:  ":-) :-)")

> >What you're saying is that Dr. Culbert may be lying.  I think it's unfair
> >to say this when you have not presented any evidence of this.
>
> I didn't say that he was lying and I don't even think that he is lying.
> I said that he has a tendency to exaggerate and I gave examples of this
> from the letter that you posted.

I apologize.  I saw some doubts about possible exaggerations, without
evidence, but I used too strong a word.

Obviously, *someone* has to be the most knowledgeable person on this
topic.  The World Almanac evidently accepted Dr. Culbert as some kind of
expert, so it seems to me that his calculations are probably trustworthy.

> >Despite all this, the estimates by Mr. MacGill and Dr. Culbert are
> >reasonably close.  One has to suspect that the number of Esperantists --
> >people who speak the language -- is over 500,000 and less than, let's say,
> >5,000,000.
> >
> But the figure of 1 million Esperantists, given by MacGill, is based on the
> supposition that there are half a million Esperantists in China.  HAO Weining,
> a Chinese Esperanto activist, says that there are less than a thousand
> Esperantists in China.  If he is right, there can only be a maximum of
> 500,000 Esperantists in the whole world according to MacGills's calculations.
> However, as I have already explained, I think that MacGill's estimates for
> other parts of the world are over-estimates too.  How many Esperantists are
> there in China according to Dr. Culbert's calculations?

I don't know, but he did raise his estimate from one to two million
because of the surge in China.  Nonetheless, it seems to me that an
"estimate" without careful research, even from someone who lives in the
country, is less trustworthy than an estimate based on research.  For
example, I've been in the US movement for several years, work in the
national organization, attended national conventions, etc...  but even I
could not trust my estimate of the number of US Esperantists, because I
don't really have many facts.

(I must correct an error of mine.  I said, that Dr. Culbert said, that his
calculation was "plus-or-minus one million."  In fact, as Derek Roff has
reminded me, he said "to the nearest million", so in fact plus-or-minus
half a million.  That still seems to be in the same ballpark as the
MacGill estimate.)

Another possibility for the differences (besides insufficient study of the
matter) is that people are defining "speaks" differently.  Dr. Culbert
used the US Foreign Service level 3 (0 = can't speak at all, 3 = can ask
questions, and respond to questions with complete sentences, 5 =
completely fluent).

Unfortunately (or fortunately!), I'm completely out of *facts* at this
point, so I probably won't post further on this matter.

> Barry
> LAWCROWN@NUSVM.BITNET

David Wolff
dwolff@RES-C4.Prime.COM

Disclaimer:  Reflecting Computervision policy is a non-goal of this posting.
FreeAdvert:  Esperanto, the international language *that works*:
             Call (800) 828-5944 for free info package (US or Canada)
Wolff'sLaw:  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,
             but generally too late to do any good.