@Jarvik
>Are you suggesting that the media is conspiring to keep esperanto down?
I wouldn't say 'conspiring' perhaps, but English-media people have an obvious personal interest in not letting people know about Esperanto. I believe it's called obscurantism. They seem to have little problem though with articles e.g. about Klingon and Toki Pona, each with (generously!) perhaps a score of fluent speakers, if that, and no wider goal of 'universal bilingualism'.
@JimmySeal
>The left hand side of most wikipedia pages has links to versions of the page in other languages. Your article was no exception.
So why did you get your knickers in such a twist about an article in Esperanto then?! ;-)
>an invented language
'invented'?! This is exactly the sort of misinformation I was writing about. I'll bet you a pizza you can't find a single 'invented' root in Andr? Cherpillod's "Konciza Etimologia Vortaro", Rotterdam 2003. There are maybe less than a dozen, but an amateur is not likely to be able to find them. The 15081 listed words are all taken from existing ethnic languages.
>there is very little reporting about foreign languages as it is, and why should there be?
And look where lack of FL competence and cultural awareness in largely monolingual Americans has landed the USA in Iraq! Are you aware of the ongoing ACTFL Campaign "Discover Languages"?:
http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1
and the upcoming 2008 UN Year of Languages campaign:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10592.doc.htm
to try to rectify this lack? The EC/EU wishes students in all EU countries to be competent in mother tongue + TWO other languages. Do you think this is happening in the UK, or is even a realistic goal?!! And how will this solve the communication problem anyway, even if they all could speak 3 languages?
>Should the news outlets make a wide report every time a few thousand people decide to have a conference somewhere in the world?
No, of course not, However what Esperanto has achieved since 1887, with only grassroots support, and minuscule govt. assistance, and having survived persecutions & exterminations under i.a. both Stalin and Hitler, is in fact quite remarkable. (I presume you know all about such Esperanto-speaking victims?:
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/efaq.html
[2/3 of the way down the page "Have any governments opposed Esperanto?"])
That a language put together by one man, and now spread around the world as a fully functioning reality, with a considerable body of literature to boot, is next to miraculous. And how many other international congresses are you aware of that attract that number of participants from so many countries?
>I think Latin is a fine language for people who want to learn about the ancient world,
And what about the medieval world too? Latin was still used till about 1700-1750, & even later in some countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin
>but for communication it is pretty much useless.
Limited yes, useless no. What about e.g. historical romance linguistics, general cultural background, etymology?
>I don't think I've ever met an Esperanto speaker in person
I wish I had that remarkable ability to tell what language a person speaks just by looking at them. How did you acquire it? Do Esperanto-speakers look somehow recognizably different? Seriously, I don't think I have ever met a speaker of Tlingit, Mongolian, Maori, Quechua, Basque, Armenian, Yoruba, Manx Gaelic etc. etc. but that doesn't make me say that those languages are useless. Communication is not the sole purpose of a language. Besides being a group identifier and excluder of 'others', it can also be used to include everyone (as Esperanto aims to, and as already noted in the Prague Manifesto).
That's enough for now. I don't want to overwhelm you with facts - and I wouldn't mind seeing some supporting evidence for your statements too.