What do you think of international languages, like Ido, Esperanto or Interlingua?

Question

Why would they (not) work? Would you learn one?

(It is fair to say I am an Idist, though it is not a commercial activity, and I'm not making money out of it, so I'm violating no guidelines by mentioning it.)

For fnokes, and anyone else who wants to know, you can learn more about Ido at this site: http://ido.li/

Broadly speaking, and considering I won't be objective, I think Ido is an improvement on Esperanto, because it deals with certain faults Esperanto had, like difficult sounds, accented letters, and an assumed masculine gender for all living beings. Ido is also more natural looking, without becoming illogical, and it has more strict word formation rules, which ensure more clarity in the meaning of the resulting words.

I'll be looking forward to it, Brahe.

Answer 1

Hi Eduardo!

I believe that we should support the esperanto movement.

Ido could be better (technically), but the esperantist movement can do more "lobby".

It does not matter to me what language will be used in the future as IAL, but using a neutral international language would be more just to all.

Answer 2

I know Esperanto to some extent. I am still improving it, just as my English and my Spanish :p
I can read texts in Ido.. but I don't feel confident to write or speak myself. I might mix so many Esperanto words. I already downloaded and printed some Ido courses. It is just a matter of finding time to study and practice a lot.
I am studying Norwegian now. Yes, imposible to compare to learning an IAL. In a little fraction of time you are able to get into rather complex conversations.
Thep roblem is that people don't even get interested in learning another language. When you tell them about an IAL, they think that it is a great idea, but useless. I don't think that. Maybe in some time I'll be able to send you a message totaly in Ido.

Answer 3

Thanks for the information. I had only known about Esperanto. I will have to look up Ido and Interlingua.
I have always been fond of the idea of Esperanto. Like its name suggests, it offers hope. I see the whole concept of international languages as having a vision of unity and commonality in our humanity.
Having said that, some people are better at learning new languages than others. My husband and I did meet some people who spoke glowingly of Esperanto, and the meet ups they had been to, through Esperanto. What a great way to meet people wherever you go!
Have you been speaking Ido for a long time? How do these languages compare, I wonder...

Answer 4

Preface: While I probably know more about Esperanto or other invented languages than the average Joe, I am by no means an expert, and I'll truthfully admit that some of what I'm about to say is based on conjecture.

What do I think about them?
I think they're interesting, and a fun challenge, but no more beyond that. I view Esperanto, Ido, and Interlingua in the same light with which I view Tolkien's Elvish: Wow, I wish I could make up a language, it seems like a fun game. However, I don't believe that I would ever bother to learn one to actually be able to use it. Language devoid of culture is meaningless. Culture informs language and language informs culture; so just as a culture cannot grow entirely separate from language, a language cannot flourish separate from a culture to make it live.

Why would they not work?
This is where the conjecture comes in. If the purpose of an invented tongue is for art (like Tolkien's languages) or for a mental exercise, then sure, it will work for that purpose. When the purpose is, on the other hand, to serve as an international means of communication, that's a little less do-able. The intentions are good, I feel. However, in order for the purpose to be realized, think about how many people would have to learn these languages (a whole lot). Unless there's a compelling reason for them to do so, it simply won't happen on that kind of scale. If we make the rational actor assumption, and use a cost-benefit analysis, the costs will simply outweigh the benefits for most people. Sure, there are those, like you, that get a psychological benefit from knowing them, but most people will not. The benefits for most will revolve around the use of these languages as a tool to achieve a goal, like increased commerce or ability to travel without problems. The sheer number of people that it would take to make these benefits outweigh the costs is staggering; so the probability of actually gaining these benefits is really low, reducing the payout that the user of these languages will get. (I'm lapsing into quantitative political scientist mode here, but I hope I said that clearly.) Further, it would take some kind of large-scale agreement that these languages will be used, which is unlikely to happen as such collective action problems are not usually solved so easily. Jimmy Carter, for example, wanted to get the US to switch to the metric system, but his idea never got off the ground because there were simply too many people resistant to idea, making it unfeasible.

Would I learn one?
Again, not well enough to be able to use it. I simply wouldn't get enough of a benefit from it to outweigh my costs--I'm a rational actor. I love languages, and I hope to learn more someday, but I love them partly because of the cultures/people that use them. That's not to say that I don't get a benefit simply out of being able to understand communication in a way that someone who only knows one language cannot, but the cultures of the people that use them are what keep me coming back for more. As we all know by now, I'm obsessed with Spain and have a healthy interest in Latin America. Both of these interests began after I started learning Spanish, but they're why I want to be fluent in the language. If I was interested in the language alone, then I'd be content with what I know about it at this point. A culture-less language can't offer me a reason to really know it.

Added later:
I also view these languages as more like Latin than anything else, in that though Latin is a painful language to learn, but I did it because I wanted a better background in my own language and Romance Languages; knowing the language itself wasn't my goal, it was a tool for me. I haven't cared to retain much of my Latin for two main reasons (though there are others): first, I, frankly, couldn't care less about Roman culture, beyond its pure historical influence; and second, the Latin we learn in school is not the Latin that was actually used by real people, it's a weirdly constructed and preserved variation that has no meaning to anyone but priests (meaning, the Latin we learn is not the so-called "vulgar Latin" that was actually used by people on the streets of Rome). Invented languages are the same in that respect: they have no real meaning, in a cultural sense.

Plus, as I'm a political scientist, I truly dig the manifest politics within languages that have developed organically. English, for example, tells the story of the domination of various peoples over the same land; it shows us the struggles for power, the conquests, the cooperation, of many different groups of people (as do all languages; think about Spanish, it tells a fascinating political story). Part of the purpose of the invented international languages you mention, from what I understand, is to get away from that political influence in language. I can understand the desire for that, and I can respect the effort. But, although that influence can certainly have negative consequences, I think it's something we shouldn't forget. (Added even later than that: I guess there is still some politics involved in constructed language, as all of the languages you mention are essentially constructed off of the Romance Language base [as far as I know], which is telling of where the creators are from and how their ideas of language and dominance have come about. It would be interesting to see a completely politics-free language.)

(PS--Sorry I keep writing such long answers, but you shouldn't ask such good questions!)

Answer 5

Si,, Molto beni gratza,,,,,,,


chow