A stronger economy, social justice and jobs
#TheFutureIsYours An economy that works for you
In 2005 François Grin, a swiss economist, wrote "Foreign language teaching as public policy", answering a request by the french "Haut conseil de l'éducation". This document attempts to answer the following questions: "What foreign languages ought to be taught, for what reasons, and considering what context?". You can read about it in Wikipedia in these links:
- In German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grin-Bericht
- In French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapport_Grin
- In Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informe_Grin
- In Esperanto: https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raporto_Grin
The report argues that adoption of Esperanto would save the EU 25 billion euros a year! As a result of BREXIT, the English language represents a huge expense and money outflow from the European Union to the UK.
For this reason, I propose to promote ESPERANTO as the common oficial language of the European Union, neutral and designed to be easy to learn.
If you also agree with this proposal... ENDORSE IT!
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
85 comments
In Antwerp, the day before yesterday, June 18, a building collapsed. Balance sheet: five dead and eight seriously injured, all seconded from European low-wage countries. The accident may have several causes, but one probable cause is that the workers did not understand each other and the safety instructions. Such accidents (fortunately usually with less severe consequences) occur on a daily basis throughout Europe and will continue to occur as long as workers do not find work in their own countries and are obliged to seek work in countries whose language they do not speak. The problem has been known for decades and a solution is not yet in sight. In the meantime, through targeted subsidies, the EU could carry out some experiments to ensure that, in situations where workers of multiple nationalities work in the same place, they all have a reasonable knowledge of one common language. English is too difficult for many workers, but Esperanto can be achievable.
Mr Grin’s report can also be read in Dutch at http://lingvo.org/grin/raportogrinnl.pdf Other economists have calculated the financial advantage of the use of Esperanto in the EU and arrive at about the same result.
Totally agree. Esperanto is the solution, and not to maintain a colonisation of English, more absurd if possible after the departure of the United Kingdom.
Conversation
Why not just carry on using English?
Why don't we want to suck English any further? Because English is not suitable to communicate well with each other: Almost all words have many different meanings, which can only be fermented from the context, because the spelling of English is incredibly bad, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqLiRu34kWo because English is a tangled language: Grammar full of exceptions, lots of words without any coherence, changing tribes, far too many different sounds.... far too hard to learn! While there is a language that was specially developed as an international language, easy and fun to learn. We need that language: ESPERANTO! ESPERANTO! Clear, logical, natural and beautiful. Mi respondis al la demando “Kial ne simple daerigi la uzadon de la angla?” de iu “BRC BRC”, Eble iu, kiu forgesis Briteliron, provante plu imperiisme plu altrudi Sian Volon al EU.
Why don't we want to mess with English? Because English is not suitable to communicate well with each other: Almost all words have many different meanings, which can only be fermented from the context, because the spelling of English is incredibly bad, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqLiRu34kWo because English is a tangled language: Grammar full of exceptions, lots of words without any coherence, changing tribes, far too many different sounds.... far too hard to learn! While there is a language that was specially developed as an international language, easy and fun to learn. We need that language: ESPERANTO! ESPERANTO! Clear, logical, natural and beautiful. Mi respondis al la demando “Kial ne simple daerigi la uzadon de la angla?” de iu “BRC BRC”, Eble iu, kiu forgesis Briteliron, provante plu imperiisme plu altrudi Sian Volon al EU.
Certainly you will continue to use English! Esperanto’s proposal is to start introducing it, with a few hours of study in schools, even before starting to study other foreign languages. In this way, in addition to having immediately a language with which they can communicate with children from all over the world who have learned it, they will be facilitated in studying another foreign language, as well as better mastering their mother tongue. You can also add the Esperanto version to EU websites and add it to the working languages. The initial costs will be offset by subsequent savings. Among other things, current language teachers, with a short refresher course, will also be able to teach it to their students, as they already have professional teaching tools. Interpreters will also be able to easily acquire this additional working tool.
There are a number of disadvantages of English compared to Esperanto. That doesn't mean that you immediately leave English aside, but you should support Esperanto. The reasons lie in the faster learning of Esperanto and cultural equality. First of all, the culture: Esperanto books are written by people from dozens of countries, English books come mainly from the US and the UK; they are written to more than 90 % by Englisch-Muttersprachler:innen; they account for about 6 % of the world’s population. English transports Anglo-American culture to the world, Esperanto gives everyone a much more equal opportunity. Learning effort: Esperanto can be learned in about a quarter of the time needed for English. For example, schoolchildren could learn 1000 hours of English and 250 hours of Esperanto, which results in roughly the same level of language in both languages.
“... Due to the current dominance of the English language, the United Kingdom receives EUR 17-18 billion annually,”... EU residents who do not have English as their mother tongue subsidise the UK economy every year." https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grin-Bericht
Why not English? Because it’s not our language. Because we do not want to depend on the language of a country that denigrates Europe, for which “Europe” means “farce”. Esperanto uses a coherent system to invent new concepts. European jargon can be easily translated into Esperanto (see http://remush.be/europa.eu/abc/eurojargon/index_eo.htm ). As a computer scientist using English fluently, I guarantee that our American jargon is totally incomprehensible to anyone outside the field. I think the same is true in the European corridors. What they speak has nothing to do with English. They're talking in... acronyms. I would add that switching to Esperanto would cost virtually nothing, since it is learned in self-taught. It would be enough for Europe to show its interest in this language for its use to explode. Not in 20 years, ten or four. In two years, we'll say: Why didn't we tell us earlier?
In a cost-benefit analysis you need to estimate both costs and benefits.
Learning languages involves both costs and benefits to the individual. Costs relate to the time and effort to learn the language (how easy or difficult it is). Benefits relate to the usefulness of the language. Can I use it to make money, study something useful, communicate with my clients, colleagues, tourists, or random people on the internet, telephone, etc?
The EU language policy goal is that citizens learn to master their mother tongue and two other languages. If the EU becomes a federal state in 50 years’ time, it might choose two official languages at the federal level. Would they be Esperanto and Modern Latin, or some another pair?
Conversation
How can European economists ignore the tens of billions of euros that a linguistic policy that is economically, socially and humanly relevant to spreading the use of Esperanto would save money? How does the French Ministry of Education continue to ignore its own comments on this Grin report: From an economic point of view, for our country, as for any non-English speaking country in Europe, this latter scenario would undoubtedly be the best: it would avoid all inequitable transfers to “all-to-English” since everyone would have to make a symmetrical effort to translate and interpret between the language of international communication and its mother tongue, and it would entail lower teaching costs, as learning such a language was easier and faster than that of English and any other language.
If politicians set up a cost-benefit calculation, they might be convinced that the relationship between costs and benefits is very unfavourable. But it seems to me that the politicians at all think that English would be without alternatives. This misconception must be refuted.
I also have the view that opinions in this regard are very tight. In any case, the great resistance to such convincing and simple solutions as Esperanto cannot be explained purely rationally.
In my opinion, the resistance to Esperanto can be explained: — I once asked an EU interpreter whether Esperanto plays a role in the EU. No, she said, and that’s a good thing, otherwise we'd all lose our job... — For the other Mitarbeiter:innen of the Commission it is similar: If you introduced Esperanto, you could do your job essentially with Esperanto. Then there would be no reason to hire linguistically specially trained people, three languages fluently... The jobs would be open to much more Bewerber:innen and salaries would probably fall. They don't want to. — Nor are others whose profession is based in English. At all, they are not friends of change. — The French Government dreams of French as an international language. Esperanto appears as a competitor. — Great Britain and the United States continue to want English as a commanding language.
In addition, there is general misinformation about Esperanto. In Brussels, many believe that Esperanto does not have a culture. This comes in combination with the fact that they don't have a pale glimpse of how Esperanto is used. After all, culture is almost automatically created wherever people are longer together. Of course, people who would have a significant financial disadvantage of anything are always willing to believe in all sorts of negative rumours. This is not only in Brussels, so it is also available at Sprachwissenschaftler:innen. I called four of them and asked Esperanto. Indeed, all four of them agreed that there would be no Esperanto-Muttersprachler:innen:-o The consequence is significant: If Esperanto had no native language use, even otherwise there would be no such frequent use, then it would not have become a language. And that’s exactly what many of them really believe. —o
In addition to what Mme Barbara Cassin, now a member of the Académie Française, announces to the religious audience about Esperanto: https://conversations.e-flux.com/t/the-power-of-bilingualism-interview-with-barbara-cassin-french-philosopher-and-philologist/6252 is an English translation, but is equally frightening in the French original. Because it was so great, it is also reproduced unchanged in the new edition of the book:-D Against this background, perhaps the energetic rejection of Esperanto is somewhat more understandable. If it were true, I wouldn't want to speak Esperanto, nor would I want to suggest it to anyone. My guess is, many Sprachwissenschaftler:innen, Eu-Beamt:innen etc. consider us a little crazy because we are committed to Esperanto. How can you seriously want something in the EU that is not the right language and has no culture? If you don't know what the other side thinks, reasoning is difficult.
Ik las het standpunt van mevrouw Cassin en vroeg mij af, hoe zij op reis gaat. Misschien nog te paard, want auto"s, treinen en vliegtuigen zijn helemaal kunstmatig en kunnen volgens haar filosofie dus niet werken. :-)
(eo) Mi legis la starpunkton de s-ino Cassin kaj scivolis, kiel ŝi vojaĝas, eble ĉevale, ĉar aŭtomobiloj, trajnoj kaj aviadiloj estas tute artefaritaj, kaj do ne povas funkcii laŭ ŝia filozofio. :-)
Conversation
Always thinking in terms of money is the gangrene of the EU. I am totally against the use of Esperanto as well as generalised English. There are already enough languages in the EU. Keeping them means preserving our cultures and living with our differences, not denying them.
The best way to get to know the different cultures in the EU and elsewhere is without a doubt to know all the languages. But I don't think that’s possible. The EU once stated (when the British had a lot to say here) that everyone should know 2 other languages besides their mother tongue. For me personally, this is not a problem, but for the vast majority of people, the formula “1+ 2” does not even make it possible for any EU citizen to communicate with any other, unless one of these two foreign languages is common to all. Hei is clear to all good understanders that this meant English; But now that the British have left the EU, we can think freely about a VERY better solution, which has existed for a long time, but has been sabotaged by many countries for self-interest. This solution helps people who wish and can learn even more foreign languages.
Of course Simon All the languages of the EU that make one of the wealth of our Union must be preserved. The ESPERANTO language and its speakers have no intention of harming any of the EU languages or even regional languages. It’s the opposite! Some examples concerning me: 2 years ago I spent a holiday in Romania not knowing Romanian and after 10 days I knew how to order my dishes, say thanks in good Romanian and I even accompanied a tourist for a purchase in a shop in Romanian! Esperanto is openness to languages! Another example: this conference site is excellent since it works in 24 languages! But when there is a plenary we don't understand anything anymore since everyone speaks in their own language and it is not translated for people like me who want to follow! A common language (especially not unique) would be welcome! And Esperanto is quite indicated. I've been talking about it for 34 years! Long live the European Union!
I agree with you that making decisions based only in terms of money is detrimental. Esperantists raise this issue to speak to those who are sensitive to it, explaining with reasonable estimates how much the EU and individual citizens are spending thanks to the current language system, based only on the language of the English people. Have you read the 2005 Grin Report, commissioned by France? However, it does not seem to me to be a small thing to do with a long-term language plan that will save the EU a few billion euros; in addition, European citizens would also save money and thousands of hours of study, which could devote themselves to studying more, as British or American children do.
The use of Esperanto as a language of communication promotes both the preservation of ethnic languages and linguistic justice, because: Esperanto is not attributable to any ethnicity and thus neutral. In the long term, this would bring economic benefits to the EU.
I like the conclusion about thinking only about money is the EU's gangrene. As to saving Europe's many languages I point out that it is English, not Esperanto, that is causing the extinction of languages all over the world by replacing them. Esperanto will not replace any language, but will a common denominator, especially in Europe. There is no better way to protect the endangered tongues of the EU and guarantee linguistic and therefore cultural equality.
Gerald Tucker
My answer to Simon Cattet contains errors. Here is the corrected version, and, as requested, the translation into Esperanto.
I like the conclusion that thinking only about money is the EU's gangrene. As to saving Europe's many languages I point out that it is English, not Esperanto, that is causing the extinction of languages all over the world by replacing them. Esperanto will not replace any language, but will be a common denominator, especially in Europe. There is no better way to protect the endangered tongues of the EU (and the world) and Esperanto will guarantee linguistic, and therefore cultural, equality.
Al mi plaĉas la konkludo ke koncentriĝo nur je mono estas la gangreno de Eŭropo. Koncerne la konservadon de la multaj eŭropaj lingvoj, mi atentigas pri tio, ke estas la angla, ne Esperanto, kiu kaŭzadas la elmorton de lingvoj en la tuta mondo, anstataŭigante ilin. Esperanto ne transprenos la lokon de iu ajn alia lingvo, sed servos kiel (daurigota)
komuna denominatoro, precipe en Eŭropo. Ne ekzistas pli bona maniero protekti la endanĝerigatajn idiomojn de EU (kaj la mondo) kaj Esperanto garantios lingvan, kaj sekve kulturan, egalecon.
Gerald Tucker
The fact that English is crowding out the other European languages is clearly seen in universities and colleges, where the “elite” is increasingly taught in English, and even its terminology is no longer known in its mother tongue. Most of the time, a final work is required in English. Ke la angla forpu ‘as la ceterajn e’ropajn lingvojn ready-made videblas and universitatoj kaj altlernejoj, kie la “elitaro” ※iam pli ofte devas Lerni la fakojn en la angla kaj e-s-ne plu scias la terminologion en la gepatra lingvo. Plej ofte la studofinaj labora 'oj estu redaktitaj en la angla.
Dear Simon, I assumed in my answer that you already knew what Esperanto is, and what difference is with English. Maybe it isn't. Allow me to tell you this briefly: English is a NATIONAL language, which has been forced upon strangers by colonisation and has thus become spurred. English, like most national languages, is full of irregularities and very special expressions. National languages have national interests, economic, military, political interests. Esperanto is a NEUTRAAL, specially designed to be easily learned, with the sole purpose of connecting people with different native languages. Esperanto is not the language of any country, so there are no national, economic, military or political interests behind it. It was persecuted and sabotaged by dictators and countries, who found their “superiority” and privileges threatened by it. If the EU grows Esperanto, it is good for the future of our Union and its citizens.
Conversation
to start this Esperanto language in Europe it takes a strong commitment, but I fully agree.
Perhaps a lot of effort, but FEEL less effort than any other language would cost the EU and each individual citizen: Esperanto is a completely logsiche language, works with immutable word strains that are put together like LEGO cubes (nice to learn!), is written as it is spoken, has no exceptions, and requires as little effort as possible to remember. Moreover, the word strains are practically all from European languages. I've found a lot of fun learning about it myself. Maybe you'd like to take a look. I would recommend that you: https://learn.esperanto.com You do not need to log in there, you can go to any lesson freely and anonymously. The explanation is likely to be found in your native language.
Of course, the EU can be guided by an arbitrary and complex language such as English, in which no spelling, pronunciation or meaning can be derived logically, if you really believe in English. Of course, it is possible to determine the dimensions and weights in inches, feet, ounces and stones, instead of meters and kilograms, if one really sees no advantage of ten powers. And it is certainly possible to formulate and resolve both complex integrals and partial differences using Roman figures still in MMXXI if, for example, cultural reasons are opposed to the Indo-Arab numerical system. But why?
Conversation
[EO] I Eblas regi EU-n per arbitrator kaj complika lingvo kia la angel, kies nek letterumadon, nek elparolon nek signifojn Eblas concludi logic, se they vere chadas them la Angla. I eblas doni mezurojn kaj pesojn per coloj, futoj, uncoj kaj sxtonoj, anstataux per metro of a kilogramoj, they vere ne vidas avantagxon en dek-potencoj. Kaj certe Eblas formuli kaj solvi kaj complicate integralojn kaj partecajn diferencekvaciojn uzante romiajn ciferojn nkoraux en jaro MMXXI are pro emple culture kauxzoj vtrauxas la hind-Araban ciferaron. SED kial?