Multilingualism in the EU institutions - commentaires

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

When I first learnt Esperanto, its suggested use as an international language implied ridicule.

Not any more. However a recent report by a Swiss Professor (Grin) financed by the French Government has clearly proven that its use in the European Parliament would save money. I stand corrected - taxpayers' money.

The conclusion was that, only bigotry and prejudice, according to the French Government report, is holding Esperanto back. At a personal level I have observed that there is bigotry against this language.

It is encouraging though to see that Esperanto is subjected less, and less, to ridicule. Serious action, as well as discussion is now essential

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

What you have written is wrong : Esperanto hasn't been created by « EU language experts » at all ! Its grammatical foundations were laid and published in 1887 by a single Polish man, who was a Doctor !

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

Dear Sir,

your discussion of the problem of international communication in the section « An impossible common language » was not clear to me.

You mentioned Esperanto as a possible solution in terms that seemed very sensible to me. However, you then dropped the topic without any further explanation, and got back to discussing the issue of linguistic nationalism, which is exactly the problem that Esperanto aims at side-stepping.

So, in the end, I didn't quite understand why a common language is impossible. It would be great if you had the opportunity to further clear up this issue in a further article.

Many thanks,

Davide T.

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

There are many obvious reasons why Esperanto would be suitable as the common language for the EU, such as - (1) it is easier to learn, (2) it has fewer ambiguities, and (3) it is religiously and politically neutral. However there is another reason for choosing Esperanto, and that is it would be more accurate than other languages that are national languages. This is difficult for experts to accept, because the unknown can threaten us, even though the threat is without merit. Because of the very structure and genius of the language, Esperanto is expressive and rich. Translations are more accurate. There are fewer mis-translations with Esperanto. The biggest problem with Esperanto is awareness and acceptance. There are no forseen drawbacks based on the language itself. - - filipo

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

Well, as a somehow multilingual Greek I would be able to sell my olives in Germany and Austria, maybe in the UK and as there is no need not in Italy and Spain. That means that speaking five or six languages doesn´t help enough to prosperity... It´s a need for the EU to have a common language. What about Greek, it´s rich, sounds nice and every Greek would be happy with ! Everybody else, I think, wouldn´t ! Because Greek seems to be difficult for all others. The same difficult as every national language more or less, as English, French or German for instance... That means a national language as a European one DISCRIMINATES millions who don´t have it as their own mother tongue. There exists a simple solution for this problem, it´s easy to learn, it´s neutral and makes nobody unhappy : ESPERANTO ! All of us can use our own language AND Esperanto. For those among us who likes to learn other languages, Esperanto with it´s propaedeutical value would help a lot to do so much more easier.

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

Without wishing to add « just another 'Me too !' message », I too found it odd to see Esperanto mentioned, once, but then never referred back to.

Whilst I agree with much of what the author says about the importance of our cultural and linguistic diversity, I don't agree with his conclusion. Not everyone is an accomplished linguist, and while I certainly agree that everyone should receive at least some instruction in a foreign language or two at school, I fully expect and accept that most will never be proficient in a foreign language.

I would urge the author to investigate the use of Esperanto. It's going on in every EU country, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find. Attend a congress or two. Read up about it. If nothing else, at least skim read the article below, written by the former UN translator Claude Piron.

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

In democracies, no decision is taken before the subject has been researched and objectively studied. So is it in science, and in law. No accused is convicted without the case being objectively examined. Why not do so in the field of language communication ? Maybe choosing Esperanto is absurd, but how can you know it before checking how it works ? Comparing in practice, in the field, the various methods men apply to understand one another over the language barriers is necessary, under the penalty of appearing subjective, prejudiced and thus undemocratic. Establishing facts is more important than discussing in the abstract. I've researched the problem in such a manner. My report has been published in French in the journal _Language Problems and Language Planning_ . An English version (« Linguistic Communication – A Comparative Field Study ») can be read on the Internet. My conclusion is the following.

For all criteria adopted – savings, rapidity of acquisition, precision, spontaneity, richness of vocabulary, equality, cost-effectiveness, etc. – Esperanto emerges as the best system. Moreover, Esperanto has been proved to be an excellent preparation to the acquisition of other languages and the discovery of foreign cultures. So why not try to see the facts before suggesting a solution which terribly lacks in realism ? Mastering one foreign language (apart from Esperanto) is extremely difficult for the average citizen, mastering two is far above most people's capabilities.

Isn't it amazing that being objective and non-masochistic seems to be so difficult in a society which claims to be civilized, scientific, and respectful of the citizens' welfare ?

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

I agree with you both !

Whenever anyone advocates multilingualism for Europe, i.e. two other languages beyond the mother tongue, those two languages usually include English. Thus, in practicle terms English becomes the de facto lingua franca.

I speak several Western European languages and, believe it, it was very hard work !

Esperanto is the obvious solution to the language problem in Europe (and dare I say - around the world).

Lernu kaj parolu Esperante - la solvo de la internacia lingva komplikaĵo.

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

Well said, Rick Miller ! Both he and I know that Benoît Courtin's contentation that a « common [second !] language is impossible » is nonsense. BC is just not aware of the « universal bilingualism » proposed by Esperanto [YOUR language + Esperanto for everybody], nor the practical extent to which Esperanto is nowadays used. This is an adequately functioning reality, not a project.

Some easily checkable examples : 1) the 91st World Congress of Esperanto, which met in August in Florence/Italy with 2209 participants from 62 different countries - all proceedings conducted entirely in Esperanto for a whole week. 2) daily broadcasts in Esperanto (available on-line) from Radio Polonia, Radio China International, and regular weekly ones from RAI/Italy and Radio Vaticana among others. 3) a calendar of daily events throughout the world using Esperanto : Eventoj 4) the acceptance of Esperanto, on a par with ethnic languages, in Hungary as one of the languages for fulfilling the FL requirement for a highschool diploma. Let's have some research based on facts !

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

I'm amazed at how the subject of Esperanto can be introduced and dismissed in the same sentence. Besides that, your readers are led to believe that Esperanto was created solely for the EU, when it fact it is being learned around the world. The idea that we should all learn English until such time as we are all forced to learn Chinese deserves a prize for shortsightedness. As a speaker of English, German and French and a student of Spanish I am not impressed by your arguments for multilingualism because they don't correspond to my experience. I'll take Esperanto any day, thank-you. P.S. No native English speaker would use the word « hemicyle » to mean the floor of an assembly and even a Google search turns up only 78 hits.

Multilingualism in the EU institutions :

You're essentially saying that to participate in the EU a person has to spend ten years learning languages which won't even guarantee that he'll be able to talk with any other participant. How many people can afford to waste that much time ?

And let's not forget that in practice there are three languages in the EU which are « more equal » than the others ; English, French, and German. Almost all translations go through one (or more) of those languages, so that anything going from Welsh to Italian for example is really translated at least twice.

Esperanto, a planned language, can handle all the nuance of an ad-hoc language like English or French but it can be learned in only a fraction of the time. It's much easier even than Italian. Ordinary people are learning and using it, and no country would have unfair advantage.

Every document could be published in only two languages, its original language and its Esperanto translation. Then anyone, even ordinary people who take a few months to learn Esperanto, would be able to read it without further translation. Translation into other languages, when desired, would be even more reliable.

Yes, learning the languages of other countries is a good idea but requiring that people dedicate years of study just to sound stupid in two other languages doesn't seem like good economics.