Esperanto Critical Response

882 Words4 Pages
Critical Response Essay #3 Name: Lê Trần Uyển Nghi (Jenny) Student code: L9925481 Class: L7A It is indispensable to have a global language, which is a language people around the world can use to communicate easily and effectively. As a result, choosing a suitable language for the global communication has aroused a great deal of controversy for a long time. In the article “Esperanto, the hope of the world”, published in “Esperanto – The Way Forward Conference- Bornor Regis, England” in June 2011, Yan Rado argues that Esperanto, which is a language of peace, can to become the world’s second language while Dr. Angla Sola, in “The Language Journal” in 2011, states the opposite arguments that it is a false belief that Esperanto is a better choice for the universal language .This essay will critically analyze the arguments of both authors. In the former article, Yan Rado presents two main reasons that Esperanto should be a lingua franca. Firstly, he claims that studying Esperanto is much easier than studying English because there are no complicated rules or abnormal verbs. Additionally, with regard to time consumption, he emphasizes that it takes a few hours for learners to illustrate their opinions in Esperanto while English learners have to spend more than one year to practice describing something. The second reason he states that Esperanto was constructed as a non-cultural language which does not belong to any country so there are no native language speakers. Therefore, if communication happens through a neutral language, that can help the feeling that people 'meet' on equal grounds and respect for one another. On the other hand, in “What’s the point of Esperanto?”, Sola states that it is inexperienced to believe that Esperanto can replace the role of English as a global language due to two reasons. The first one is that it is
Open Document