The problem with Esperanto is that it’s still very euro centric. I might nonetheless be willing to learn it, just because I get a kick out of watching native English speakers trying to speak a foreign language
Esperanto is eurocentric, because it’s international. Because romance languages where made by colonialism of the roman empire. The argument goes of “equality”. Thinking the other way around would be that asiatic languages colonized the world, then Esperanto would be based on asiatic languages.
Esperanto is a pragmatic language, not a “totally neutral” language. If you design a language to be “totally neutral” then parts would be distributed differently. How to chose which vocabulary of languages should be used often?
So using romance languages is a pragmatic solution to this. Through usage words can be added or fall out of use, all that is allowed in Esperanto and which can make the language out of colonialism in the future more egalitarian.
But it’s ignorant to ignore Esperanto at all and morally vilifying it as “eurocentric therefore bad”.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@programming.dev
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos
The problem with Esperanto is that it’s still very euro centric. I might nonetheless be willing to learn it, just because I get a kick out of watching native English speakers trying to speak a foreign language
Esperanto is eurocentric, because it’s international. Because romance languages where made by colonialism of the roman empire. The argument goes of “equality”. Thinking the other way around would be that asiatic languages colonized the world, then Esperanto would be based on asiatic languages.
Esperanto is a pragmatic language, not a “totally neutral” language. If you design a language to be “totally neutral” then parts would be distributed differently. How to chose which vocabulary of languages should be used often?
So using romance languages is a pragmatic solution to this. Through usage words can be added or fall out of use, all that is allowed in Esperanto and which can make the language out of colonialism in the future more egalitarian.
But it’s ignorant to ignore Esperanto at all and morally vilifying it as “eurocentric therefore bad”.