hi! > I believe that's the whole point of using neutral languages, i.e. > languages which are nobody's mother's tongue, such as esperanto. Using sorry, i don't believe so! (1) english is wide-spread and (2) there is no neutral language. e.g. esperanto was created with a clear socialist outlook. i guess you guys here won't consider that "neutral". am i right? what about klingon? *grin* i think: we should use the benefits of imperialism and capitalism. :-) everything else (such as learning a language nobody speaks) smells like idealism. esperanto didn't succeed within the worker's movement - why should it today? and why should this happen right on this list? *smile* my point is (as a linguist): communication is something living; and so are languages. who can say e.g. where the difference between language, dialect, sociolect, slang etc. is? like one may (or may not) write dos for does, one may (or may not ;-) ) use setup instead of set up. don't you google? what would your grandfather say to the word "computer"? maybe the same some french and spanish do today? and what would you say if i told you that the word setup is not considered correct english but colloquial language by many dictionaries? ;-) we do not have (and i do not want to have) control over this particular development of society. there are bigger (social) problems we should care about, aren't there? (however, maybe not on this list!) and here is not school, so we should really finish this thread now! :-D cheerio /pablo -- Pablo Hoertner | LONG LIVE THE RED PENGUIN AND THE http://www.redtux.at.tf/contact.html | SOCIALIST WORKERS' WORLD REVOLUTION!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature