Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
For the same reason that the world still uses the QWERTY layout, although more efficient ones have long been created. The masses are always inert, changes are made by small groups of initiators, which the masses follow (or not).
Strictly speaking, Esperanto has really caught on. Esperantists live all over the world and actively use Esperanto for everyday communication, travel, business, romantic relationships, etc. Yes, it didn't become dominant like English, but it couldn't have happened. Hitler defeated the Esperanto community in Europe, Stalin-in the USSR, and after the Second World War, the rise of the United States began, and with it the victorious march of the English language, which was previously marginal. Esperanto was of no political interest to anyone, and without it it would have been naive to expect support from politicians.
Esperanto has not taken root because it does not have any economic, political or military power behind it. Point. Everything else is from the evil one. And the language itself is great. According to the famous polyglot Benny Lewis, even if no one spoke Esperanto, this language would still be worth learning. First of all, no ethnic language puts the brain in such order as Esperanto (well, except for Quechua and Aymara). Ethnic languages teach first of all to cram, and Esperanto teaches first of all to think. And secondly, Esperanto is an excellent propaedeutic tool. Numerous experiments in different countries have shown that knowledge of this language greatly facilitates the learning of foreign languages. For example, as a result of teaching Esperanto in Hungarian schools, it was found that for Hungarians, knowledge of Esperanto facilitates learning French by 50%, English by 40%, German by 30%, and Russian by 25%.
Why do you need it if you have an English language? By the time it appeared, English was already widely spoken, for example, French, with which it could hardly compete. The whole civilized world has been speaking English for a long time, but in an uncivilized one, Esperanto will not be of any use. After all, knowing Esperanto, even in the most optimistic scenario, is no substitute for knowing English. Even if the whole world decides to switch to Esperanto in international communications, English and American scientists and businessmen will still continue to communicate in their native language. And anyone who wants to study at Harvard and Oxford, trade stocks in London and New York, or even just read scientific articles in journals like the American Journal of Something, will still be nowhere without fluency in English (just as they are now nowhere without knowledge of French in former colonies with strong ties to France, and knowledge of Spanish in Latin (South) America).
And it is not so simple. Grammar is regular and simple, and everyone learns it very quickly, but even with a powerful word formation system, almost all vocabulary will have to be cram as hard as in other languages. If you speak a couple of European languages, then you can learn Esperanto without any problems, but the question is-do you need it in this case?