Esperato lovers speak out
Although the title does not do justice to the actual situation in today's world, I wish to congratulate you for David Newnham's article ("World reluctant to embrace Esperanto," July 18, page 9). As a speaker (and lover) of Esperanto since my teens, I've appreciated its rare accuracy.
However, he's mistaken when he says that "Esperanto is probably the only language to have no irregular verbs." How could you, in Taipei, print such a sentence? Chinese has no irregular verbs either. It consists, just as Esperanto, of completely invariable blocks that combine without restriction.
Esperanto's Eurocentricity is less marked than Newnham suggests. While the roots on which the vocabulary is based are European, they combine according to patterns you find in Asian languages. In both Chinese and Esperanto, you derive "first" from "one" and "my" from "I," something alien to European tongues.
Or consider words like "foreigner" or "autonomous." The Chinese who learns English has to memorize them as new, separate entities. In Esperanto, eksterlandano, "foreigner," consists of the same three elements as its Chinese equivalent waiguoren: ekster, "outside," land, "country" and ano, "a human being (belonging to...)."
Similarly, memstara, "autonomous", is an exact transposition of the Chinese zili (stara "who stands" = li
I've noticed also that my experience -- I was more fluent in Esperanto after 10 months than in English after 10 years -- is shared by many people all over the world. For many decades, Esperanto used to be derided in the press. The trend appears to be changing. More and more honest articles are being published. But Newnham's stands out for its wealth of accurate information.
Claude Piron
Switzerland
The reason why Esperanto is not widely known in England and Wales (and probably the rest of the world) is that professional language teachers regard it as a menace to their jobs, or beneath their dignity because it is not complicated, or think that Esperanto teachers are heretics. It has long been suppressed in UK schools, and hardly anyone emerges from the system with knowledge of it.
The British Esperanto Association struggled for many years to have it examinable for the Certificate of Secondary Education, and finally for the General Certificate in Secondary Education (GCSE). The Northern Examining Association successfully marketed the GCSE in Esperanto, but in 1989 the Modern Languages Working Group, consisting of the leaders of professional language teachers, omitted to mention Esperanto when it recommended a list of languages (19 of them, from Arabic to Urdu) to the then minister of education, for inclusion in the emergent National Curriculum.
Since 1990, when the National Curriculum came into force, it has therefore been illegal to teach Esperanto as a first foreign language in schools in England and Wales, and this caused it to be ignored by schools in the rest of the UK.
As a second foreign language it may be taught, but timetabling for that purpose is so difficult that it would be true to say that millions of UK adults by now are unaware of the only successful means of speaking or writing to non-English-speakers on a basis of equality. The GCSE in Esperanto was withdrawn in 1995 because of a lack of candidates.
David Curtis
England
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS