The reading summary is done by: Sonya Rodgers (ENGL300-1) and Amy Meier (ENGL300-2)
Due by class time on: Wed., March 23rd, 2011
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on: Fri., March 25th, 2011
The text you need to read is here.
There needs to be a language that is understood universally. A physician in 19nth century Poland, Ludovic Zamenhoph invented "Esperanto."
"Esperanto" is supposed to be an easy-to-learn language that everyone could translate. Jamia says "Esperanto" is a Romantic language with syntax of slavic languages. It is supposed to have simple grammar, have no irregular verbs, as well as spelling that can be sounded out.
Zamenhoph's goal to erase communication barriers failed or did it? Where did Esperanto go? The Czar in 1895 banned "Esperanto." However that is when works such as the Old Testament, Shakespeare and Hamlet were translated into "Esperanto." Jamia tells that after World War 1 Hitler denounced "Esperanto" and outlawed all organizations that dealt with it.
Today however the computer is the largest known communication barrier breaker. " You can design all the standards you want but in the end you have to do it Microsoft's way (pg.466 "Esperanto," Jamia.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article “The Decline and Fall of Esperanto: Lessons for Standards Committees,” by Robert Patterson, MD, MSC, Stanley M. Huff, MD explains a simple, easy to learn, planned language called Esperanto. Esperanto was introduced in 1887 by Ludovic Zamenhoff, a polish physician. His goal was to erase communication barriers between different ethnic groups by giving them a politically neutral, culturally free standard language.
Zamenhof grew up in 19th century Poland. Throughout his life he faced a number of different languages. His family spoke Polish and Yiddish, the official government spoke Russian, while his neighbors spoke Lithuanians and German. It is because of the numerous language conflicts that he encountered that led him to the conclusion that language diversity was the main cause of division in family. Dr. Zamenhof was trained in ophthalmology but he was interested in finding a way to unite the world through a common language. He quickly learned that Latin or classic Greek languages were too difficult so he developed Esperanto, which literally means “one who hopes.” This language was designed to be easy to learn and pronouns. The grammar within the language was simple, there is never irregular verbs, and the spelling is phonetic.
Esperanto was both praised and opposed. Toistoy loved the idea of a common language and even claimed to learn it within a few hours. On the other hand, Czar suspected the language was a seditionist plot so he banned it. Furthermore, Hitler denounced the language in Mein Kampf as a tool of Jewish world domination and outlawed all Esperanto organizations. After World War II, the languages’ popularity grew in China and Eastern Europe. Both governments saw a need for a common language. However, the language didn’t obtain much interest in the United States and the rest of Europe.
In recent years Esperanto has dwindled down but is still growing at an extremely slow rate. Currently English is the closest thing to an international language. Although many people had shown a lot of interest in Esperanto, it was not a practical language because it was no one’s mother language. While English on the other hand, is considered far more practical. It is agreed that for both human communication and for the sharing of medical information, there should be a common language. Today, standards committees have produced some successes in the medical field. These standards have already reduced time and cost that is needed to create interfaces between medical computer systems. Members of the HL7 organization made their best guesses about what would work without the benefit of a strong formal model and then they built interfaces based on a simple design.
In the end, no matter how logical and well intended a proposal standard is, it will not flourish if it overlooks the practical issues in “real life” systems. The author writes that the key for standards committees is to find the narrow line by developing and exploiting imperfect but functional strategies that build on existing systems.
by: Sonya R. Rodgers
I think this is a very interesting article. I had never heard of “Esperanto” until reading this. This is an intriguing concept. I think it is very smart to try to bridge the gap of language barriers with a simple universal language. However, I do understand the down sides to this idea as well. The fact that the language doesn’t belong to any specific country means that eventually the language would change from culture to culture, which ultimately defeats the purpose. I would agree that using English as an international language is definitely more practical. Why learn several languages when you can benefit the most from English? However, for those of us whose native language is English I feel we have a disadvantage. I think everyone would agree for career purposes that a bilingual person is preferred. Overall, this was an interesting and informative topic, and I would like to learn more about it.
ReplyDeleteThis article caught my attention, because I had never heard of "Esperanto" before. I agree with the author that is important to have some kind of universal language so that people all over the world can communicate easily. Also, I thought it was interesting that Esperanto was made up by Zamenhof, because languages are very old. Moreover, it seems odd that Esperanto actually gained any legitimacy at all, because it seems to be random. However, I see the need for a common language, and I can also see how English would be thought of as the common language around the world.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interested. As the commenter above me stated, I have never heard of Esperanto as well. I like how the author tries to give readers knowledge bout this language and also spread awareness about the importance of broadening our language. In the article there are also certain concepts that compare speakers of different languages other than English to English speaking people.I enjoyed reading this because i love learning about new things. Also, the summaries were well written.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read the article, I have never heard of Esperanto. But after reading the article I now understand the meaning behind it. Briefly, Esperanto was a common language back then that was used everyday. Just like every other language, it dwindled and people started to drift away from it. I think English should be a universal language rather than learning various types of languages. English is prominent in mostly all countries and many people use English as their primary language. It defeats the purpose of learning a different language when the main language is English. But, it is also good to have knowledge of the second most spoken language in the world because it is more beneficial for the person and the people around.
ReplyDeleteReading Esperanto, I found what "Esperanto" really meant. In this article written by Robert Patterson, I come to find that Esperanto was a language used back then as a common language spoken everyday. I can relate from the language "Esperanto" in which it drifted away as a common language to people. Being from a Latino Descent, in my household my parents mainly spoke Spanish and I myself did the same thing. As I entered into SIUC, where the language is mainly English in which I drifted away from Spanish and began to speak only English. Which is why I come to conclude that English should be taught in other countries because everyone wants to learn it in some sort and set English as their primary language.
ReplyDeleteGreat summaries! very easy to comprehend. I think the subject is interesting too. The idea of a universal language may sound like a great option however I don't think it is very practical. I mean look at how the metric system went over when we all tried to convert to that back in the 80's.... I think it would have the same result. Good intentions but it just wouldn't stick and I think it would create more animosity and more conflict between countries, just by the process of figuring out the linguistics of "esperanto".
ReplyDeleteI have often wondered if Esperanto would, again, pick up steam and become the first official international language. It would defiantly help to bridge many gaps in this world. The medical field would benefit by being able to help more people who before may not have been able to understand. Strife between countries may simmer if they were able to communicate with one another, instead of only certain members and translators. However, we all know that this will only come about when the dominant languages accept, and support the change.
ReplyDeleteI have actually never heard of Esperanto before so I thought this article was very interesting. What doesn't really make sense in this article, though, is that the author compared Esperanto (which is supposed to be a very simplistic language)to English and claimed that English was the closest language to it being that English is a very international language. I don't really think English is a similar language to Esperanto, though, because I feel like English is actually a pretty complex language. Sometimes I think about how difficult it must be for people that speak different languages to learn English because there are so many flaws in the English language such as contradicting rules of the language. I always think about if I didn't grow up learning English I would assume that it was be a pretty difficult language to learn. I think that the idea that inspired Esperanto--the need of an international language--is a great idea but not necessarily the easiest task to achieve.
ReplyDeleteIn the article Esperanto, by Dr. Robert Patterson explains the work of Dr.Ludovic Zamenhoph. His goal was to erase communication barriers between ethnic groups by providing them with a politically neutral, culturally free standard language. Esperanto is compared to English as being very close but I don't agree with that claim because English is known to be a very complicated language due to our many slang words and synonyms. Regardless of the differences between Esperanto and English I do agree with concept of Esperanto. Every country needs some common ground to communicate with each other.
ReplyDeleteThis article was about a language "Esperanto" that was made as an simple easy to learn language. I think that this article was interesting because I had never heard of this language before I read this. I think that it was cool that there is a language out there that I have never heard of before. I think that it was interesting that he compared English to this language. I think that this makes sense because almost everywhere in the country people speak English at least a little bit, so I agree that they could be alike as a common international language. I think that an international language does need to be invented or made, so that everybody can communicate with others in foreign countries.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this article I had never heard of Esperanto. The author shows the importance of having a universal language and I completely agree that one is needed. If it were not for language most people would be lost, and when it comes to Esperanto the language was chosen to bring people together. I feel that slang has the same affect. We use slang to identify with one another and I think that's the beauty of language. So I do feel that English is in place to do so even though Esperanto was chosen to get "booted" so to speak.
ReplyDeleteThis would be my first time of ever hearing of "Esperanto". I think that the concept of creating one language to unite all countries and all people is very interesting. At the same time, I believe that it would not be effective and eliminate diversity. If every one understood one single language instead of many we make ourselves a little less complex. It would be good because you can communicate world wide without confusion. Since we are all different somehow people would create their own versions of the language.
ReplyDeleteI have heard Esperanto before when I was taking some of linguistics courses before. I have never known how the Esperanto looks like or sounds like. I think it is good if we have a common language no matter we are from which place. Although English is considered as a international language in the whole world, there are numerous people don’t know or have no chance to learn English. For me, I think English is not a difficult language to learn but it is difficult to use it properly, especially in writing. However, English is a easy language to learn when comparing with other languages.
ReplyDeleteThis was one of the more interesting articles in my opinion. I enjoy learning about new concepts and this was one I had never encountered before. I think it would be beneficial and quite cool to have a universal language that unites all people from all walks of life. I believe this would cut down on the ignorance of racism, because this hatred comes from not knowing about other races. In today's society I believe we already have a similar concept accept it is not a technical language. This language that I'm discussing is called slang, which is the improper use of the English language. Slang is well known throughout the united states and is easy to learn, I wonder will this universal language take the same affect. In conclusion a universal language might be difficult to endure at first but is a great way to unite people together.
ReplyDeleteEsperanto, a language created to unite all nations, is a noble attempt at bringing a universal commonality. Language does seem to be the barrier which separates all of the countries in the world. Zamenhof definitely made some noise with his idea but it is too hard to connect everyone to one notion. Though, his language was much easier to use, it was rejected by Hitler and others who probably did not even try to learn the language. It seems like an attempt at something great, but it might have been too idealistic after all.
ReplyDeleteThe article “The Decline and Fall of Esperanto: Lessons for Standards Committees,” by Robert Patterson, MD, MSC, Stanley M. Huff, MD explains a simple, easy to learn, planned language called Esperanto. Before reading this article I had never heard of Esperanto, so I found it very interesting. Esperanto, which means “one who hopes.” was designed to be easy to learn and pronouns. Although English is considered as a international language in the whole world, there are numerous people don’t know or have no chance to learn English, so having a universal language would be convenient for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting article, and I think the students did a nice job of summarizing. I feel the idea for an international language is a great idea. By establishing one language for everyone, people could come together better. Traveling to foreign countries wouldn't be as much of a strain. However, to get the entire world to: 1- accept the challenge to change to the international language, and 2- teach it to all their citizens. There needs to be a system of teaching to carry it out. I think this is a good idea, but because of how difficult it would be to follow through, I don't see this happening sometime in our near future.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting to me. Esperanto is something that I had never heard of before reading this artice. It is basically a simple language that was created in order for people to communicate more easily with on another without having to learn a different language if those two individuals just so happen to speak another language. Even though this language was rejected, I do believe it was as a good idea. Mainly because it was just another way for individuals to connect with one another.
ReplyDeleteThe article “The Decline and Fall of Esperanto: Lessons for Standards Committees,” by Robert Patterson, MD, MSC, Stanley M. Huff, MD is about the language Esperanto. Esperanto was a language that was created in order to erase communication barriers between different types of ethnic groups through giving them a politically neutral, and culturally free standard language to share. The language was designed to be learned easily. In order to keep it uncomplicated; Zamenhof created this language without irregular verbs and the use of phonetic spelling. However, this language did not take off and it is not used by many. Countries prefer to use their native languages and do not want to abandon them for a made up language.
ReplyDeleteIn 1887, Polish physician Ludovic Zamenhof introduced an essay that outlines an easy- to-learn universal language. The language was supposed to be politically neutral, a free and standard language. Many people were interested in this essay in the 1970’s, but has since been forgotten. The logic of a standard language and form of communication is great, but it would never function in real life. I had never hears of, “Esperanto” and the idea of a universal language caught my attention. I think in recent years English has become and international language or universal at least to business on a multinational level.
ReplyDeleteI thought this article was very interesting. I think it would be really fascinating to have one common language throughout the whole world. To think that more than six billion people would be able to communicate with each other no matter where they lived is shocking and exciting. I am not surprised however that the Esperanto language did not grow; it is hard to start something so monumental and try to get the entire planet to join in with it. It’s like trend setting for the whole world-it takes a lot of time and patience and sometimes it just doesn’t work out. However the Esperanto language is still growing even though it is an extremely slow process; but I am curious to see what happens with this language in the future.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting to me because I haven’t ever really known about Esperanto. Esperanto is a language created to bring all nations together. This is important because language barriers are a big reason for the amount of diversity and separation between all countries. The author does a good job showing how important it is to have a universal language and I totally agree with that. If language did not exist it would be very difficult to communicate with people, which represents the disconnection of countries. I do not believe Esperanto is capable of getting rid of all diversity, but I do believe it would make a difference. In order for something like this to be effective, everyone in the world would have to agree with it and agree to teach it to every one of his or her citizens. That would definitely be something to push me away from the idea, because with how large the population of some countries are it would be easy for some citizens to slip through the cracks.
ReplyDelete