After initially being rejected by Valve, The Expression Amrilato is now live on Steam

Some balk at the utility of leaning Esperanto, but it has been shown that learning it as a first additional language makes learning subsequent natural languages (at least European languages) much easier.

This feels more like someone made a mistake at Valve than anything intentional. I'm being gracious, admittedly, because this is Valve, after all, the gaming company from the next dimension over. I don't pay too much attention to this aspect of Valve, but it seems to me that for all Valve's capriciousness, it's usually edge Adult sexual or Hate crime sorta cases that are rejected---not loving/blooming homosexuality or language learning. Was a reason given?


Last edited by Nanobang on 26 June 2019 at 1:57 pm UTC

Quoting: DesumSome balk at the utility of leaning Esperanto, but it has been shown that learning it as a first additional language makes learning subsequent natural languages (at least European languages) much easier.

Well, according to J. H. Halloran, "A four year experiment in Esperanto as an introduction to French":

Quote[...]among the more intelligent students, the best success in French was among those who began it immediately.[...]
[...]Those who began with Esperanto achieved a better "passive knowledge" and those who began with French acquired better "active use."[...]

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any research available on the benefits of Esperanto for learning languages that don't fit into the Germanic or Romanic language groups (e.g. Finnish, Vietnamese, Arabic).

Still, for most people who haven't yet picked up a couple of additional languages Esperanto seems pretty easy and useful to pick up, so it may still be worth a look... if this game floats your boat it may be useful.

Quoting: tmtvl

Quoting: DesumSome balk at the utility of leaning Esperanto, but it has been shown that learning it as a first additional language makes learning subsequent natural languages (at least European languages) much easier.

Well, according to J. H. Halloran, "A four year experiment in Esperanto as an introduction to French":

Quote[...]among the more intelligent students, the best success in French was among those who began it immediately.[...]
[...]Those who began with Esperanto achieved a better "passive knowledge" and those who began with French acquired better "active use."[...]

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any research available on the benefits of Esperanto for learning languages that don't fit into the Germanic or Romanic language groups (e.g. Finnish, Vietnamese, Arabic).

Still, for most people who haven't yet picked up a couple of additional languages Esperanto seems pretty easy and useful to pick up, so it may still be worth a look... if this game floats your boat it may be useful.

Esperanto's grammar is actually basically Slavic whereas most of it's lexicon is Latin/Germanic based. And I did say (granted, inside brackets) that it seems to help with European languages, not languages in general. There was a study that showed that young children who learned Esperanto for two years and then Spanish for three, tended to have a better grasp on it than children who only learned Spanish over the course of five years.

Here is a relevant TEDx talk on the subject: https://youtu.be/8gSAkUOElsg


Last edited by Desum on 26 June 2019 at 4:07 pm UTC

Quoting: DesumSome balk at the utility of leaning Esperanto, but it has been shown that learning it as a first additional language makes learning subsequent natural languages (at least European languages) much easier.

As I understand it, learning any additional language makes learning subsequent languages easier. So how much more easier does that language being Esperanto make it? Unless the differential was huge, or you were planning to learn a lot of languages, I suspect that any gains would not be big enough to make up for the time actually spent learning Esperanto.
Like I mean, if learning any second language made subsequent languages 20% easier, and if it's Esperanto subsequent languages are 30% easier, then you'd break even at around 10 languages . . . and that's if the effects don't even out as you add languages.
The most compelling case I've seen for Esperanto was as an easily-learned sort of "middle layer" diplomats and translators could use, like at the UN or whatever. Computers are arguably making such middle layers obsolete, and I've noticed that manga translations that are two step kind of suck anyway. So even that niche is pretty iffy.

That said, I tend to think Esperanto is cool and doesn't really need an excuse. Not as cool as, say, Quenya or Sindarin though. And not cool enough in any of those cases for me to want to actually learn them.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: DesumSome balk at the utility of leaning Esperanto, but it has been shown that learning it as a first additional language makes learning subsequent natural languages (at least European languages) much easier.

As I understand it, learning any additional language makes learning subsequent languages easier. So how much more easier does that language being Esperanto make it? Unless the differential was huge, or you were planning to learn a lot of languages, I suspect that any gains would not be big enough to make up for the time actually spent learning Esperanto.
Like I mean, if learning any second language made subsequent languages 20% easier, and if it's Esperanto subsequent languages are 30% easier, then you'd break even at around 10 languages . . . and that's if the effects don't even out as you add languages.
The most compelling case I've seen for Esperanto was as an easily-learned sort of "middle layer" diplomats and translators could use, like at the UN or whatever. Computers are arguably making such middle layers obsolete, and I've noticed that manga translations that are two step kind of suck anyway. So even that niche is pretty iffy.

That said, I tend to think Esperanto is cool and doesn't really need an excuse. Not as cool as, say, Quenya or Sindarin though. And not cool enough in any of those cases for me to want to actually learn them.

Learning Esperanto is easier than almost any natural language since it lacks most of the quirks and inconsistencies most languages that develop naturally have. It's also a mix of many European languages, which makes it particularly useful to learn before Romance, Germanic, or even Slavic languages. As for time spent, look at my second post. Child A who spends two years learning Esperanto and then three years learning Spanish will likely out perform Child B who spent the full five years on Spanish.


Last edited by Desum on 26 June 2019 at 4:24 pm UTC

Quoting: Desum

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: DesumSome balk at the utility of leaning Esperanto, but it has been shown that learning it as a first additional language makes learning subsequent natural languages (at least European languages) much easier.

As I understand it, learning any additional language makes learning subsequent languages easier. So how much more easier does that language being Esperanto make it? Unless the differential was huge, or you were planning to learn a lot of languages, I suspect that any gains would not be big enough to make up for the time actually spent learning Esperanto.
Like I mean, if learning any second language made subsequent languages 20% easier, and if it's Esperanto subsequent languages are 30% easier, then you'd break even at around 10 languages . . . and that's if the effects don't even out as you add languages.
The most compelling case I've seen for Esperanto was as an easily-learned sort of "middle layer" diplomats and translators could use, like at the UN or whatever. Computers are arguably making such middle layers obsolete, and I've noticed that manga translations that are two step kind of suck anyway. So even that niche is pretty iffy.

That said, I tend to think Esperanto is cool and doesn't really need an excuse. Not as cool as, say, Quenya or Sindarin though. And not cool enough in any of those cases for me to want to actually learn them.

Learning Esperanto is easier than almost any natural language since it lacks most of the quirks and inconsistencies most languages that develop naturally have. It's also a mix of many European languages, which makes it particularly useful to learn before Romance, Germanic, or even Slavic languages. As for time spent, look at my second post. Child A who spends two years learning Esperanto and then three years learning Spanish will likely out perform Child B who spent the full five years on Spanish.

I'd want more than one study, and some pretty meticulous rigor, for a claim that outlandish; that's way too big an effect to be believable. It defies logic to say that I would not only be helped in my study of subject A by studying subject B, but actually learn more about subject A by studying subject B than by studying subject A.

Educational studies are notoriously tricky. They've found enhanced results for practically any kind of new and different pedagogical approach, basically because any time the teachers and students think they're doing something special, they work harder and have better attitudes. So if you believe the studies, all the approaches are vastly superior to, well, each other.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe most compelling case I've seen for Esperanto was as an easily-learned sort of "middle layer" diplomats and translators could use, like at the UN or whatever. Computers are arguably making such middle layers obsolete, and I've noticed that manga translations that are two step kind of suck anyway. So even that niche is pretty iffy.

Any translation that needs to pass through intermediary translations is definitely going to lose something in the process. Translation is always a lossy conversion, so to speak, and while you can keep the gist of the meaning through several conversions, you inevitably lose and gain subtleties with every layer, which can end up making a significant difference. Despite that, it is very common for companies (and open source projects) to translate their source material to English first, and from English to all other languages, because it's easier and/or cheaper to find translators for a language pair that includes English.

I would also expect Esperanto to have the same problem as Latin, for instance, and lag behind neologisms (which, in many industries, originate from English or are popularized by it) as well as lack the cultural identity to adapt to idioms and cultural references without sounding stilted. Just look at how much English is seeping into other natural languages because they can't keep up with all the new terms and agree on local equivalents before the anglicisms take root. How many languages use "e-mail" as is although it would be rather trivial to translate the words "electronic mail"?

I feel like if you're going to pepper your speech with English words because they either don't exist in your intermediary language or you don't know them, you might as well just learn English.

That said, I don't exactly have anything against Esperanto or learning it. I've always wanted to learn Latin at some point, and God knows that would be useless.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Desum

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: DesumSome balk at the utility of leaning Esperanto, but it has been shown that learning it as a first additional language makes learning subsequent natural languages (at least European languages) much easier.

As I understand it, learning any additional language makes learning subsequent languages easier. So how much more easier does that language being Esperanto make it? Unless the differential was huge, or you were planning to learn a lot of languages, I suspect that any gains would not be big enough to make up for the time actually spent learning Esperanto.
Like I mean, if learning any second language made subsequent languages 20% easier, and if it's Esperanto subsequent languages are 30% easier, then you'd break even at around 10 languages . . . and that's if the effects don't even out as you add languages.
The most compelling case I've seen for Esperanto was as an easily-learned sort of "middle layer" diplomats and translators could use, like at the UN or whatever. Computers are arguably making such middle layers obsolete, and I've noticed that manga translations that are two step kind of suck anyway. So even that niche is pretty iffy.

That said, I tend to think Esperanto is cool and doesn't really need an excuse. Not as cool as, say, Quenya or Sindarin though. And not cool enough in any of those cases for me to want to actually learn them.

Learning Esperanto is easier than almost any natural language since it lacks most of the quirks and inconsistencies most languages that develop naturally have. It's also a mix of many European languages, which makes it particularly useful to learn before Romance, Germanic, or even Slavic languages. As for time spent, look at my second post. Child A who spends two years learning Esperanto and then three years learning Spanish will likely out perform Child B who spent the full five years on Spanish.

I'd want more than one study, and some pretty meticulous rigor, for a claim that outlandish; that's way too big an effect to be believable. It defies logic to say that I would not only be helped in my study of subject A by studying subject B, but actually learn more about subject A by studying subject B than by studying subject A.

Educational studies are notoriously tricky. They've found enhanced results for practically any kind of new and different pedagogical approach, basically because any time the teachers and students think they're doing something special, they work harder and have better attitudes. So if you believe the studies, all the approaches are vastly superior to, well, each other.

Outlandish? Esperanto is easier to learn than any Germanic, Romance, or Slavic language that evolved naturally. Yet, it has something in common with nearly all of them. It's not hard to see how that makes it a good bridge to other, more complex and quirk ridden, European languages.

Quoting: Desum

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Desum

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: DesumSome balk at the utility of leaning Esperanto, but it has been shown that learning it as a first additional language makes learning subsequent natural languages (at least European languages) much easier.

As I understand it, learning any additional language makes learning subsequent languages easier. So how much more easier does that language being Esperanto make it? Unless the differential was huge, or you were planning to learn a lot of languages, I suspect that any gains would not be big enough to make up for the time actually spent learning Esperanto.
Like I mean, if learning any second language made subsequent languages 20% easier, and if it's Esperanto subsequent languages are 30% easier, then you'd break even at around 10 languages . . . and that's if the effects don't even out as you add languages.
The most compelling case I've seen for Esperanto was as an easily-learned sort of "middle layer" diplomats and translators could use, like at the UN or whatever. Computers are arguably making such middle layers obsolete, and I've noticed that manga translations that are two step kind of suck anyway. So even that niche is pretty iffy.

That said, I tend to think Esperanto is cool and doesn't really need an excuse. Not as cool as, say, Quenya or Sindarin though. And not cool enough in any of those cases for me to want to actually learn them.

Learning Esperanto is easier than almost any natural language since it lacks most of the quirks and inconsistencies most languages that develop naturally have. It's also a mix of many European languages, which makes it particularly useful to learn before Romance, Germanic, or even Slavic languages. As for time spent, look at my second post. Child A who spends two years learning Esperanto and then three years learning Spanish will likely out perform Child B who spent the full five years on Spanish.

I'd want more than one study, and some pretty meticulous rigor, for a claim that outlandish; that's way too big an effect to be believable. It defies logic to say that I would not only be helped in my study of subject A by studying subject B, but actually learn more about subject A by studying subject B than by studying subject A.

Educational studies are notoriously tricky. They've found enhanced results for practically any kind of new and different pedagogical approach, basically because any time the teachers and students think they're doing something special, they work harder and have better attitudes. So if you believe the studies, all the approaches are vastly superior to, well, each other.

Outlandish? Esperanto is easier to learn than any Germanic, Romance, or Slavic language that evolved naturally. Yet, it has something in common with nearly all of them. It's not hard to see how that makes it a good bridge to other, more complex and quirk ridden, European languages.

If I study Esperanto, I know Esperanto's grammar and vocabulary. This will have some commonalities with those of various other languages, and no doubt will make it easier to learn them. Further, any second language I learn will increase my flexibility in terms of understanding language concepts--I will have to come to terms with the fact that there can be other grammatical structures, sounds and so forth from the set I first learned, and having done so, further languages are a smaller step. There are lots of studies about this effect--it's quite well established. So sure, studying Esperanto will help one learn other languages.

But studying Esperanto is still studying Esperanto, not studying Spanish. I will obviously learn more about Spanish from studying Spanish than from studying Esperanto. It is just silly to assert that my Spanish knowledge gain from studying Esperanto will be greater than my Spanish knowledge gain from studying Spanish. I would, as I say, require a lot more than one study to establish such an extreme claim, especially in a field (pedagogy) which is, as I said, very tricky to do studies in. And which, frankly, has historically had a whole lot of fluff research.

I don't see the simplicity thing as a likely help in learning further languages. It may make learning Esperanto itself easier, but if anything I would expect it would leave one less prepared for the messiness of real languages.