🚀 go-pugleaf

Ulf.Lunde@kvatro.no (Ulf Lunde) writes:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:52:43 GMT, joinonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Juha Oinonen) said:
>>
>> 	Could we use Esperanto as a kind of official language (for naming
>> 	UU, for instance) and give teaching in English. Currently,
>> 	(virtually) no-one knows Esperanto, so it's not a good idea
>> 	to force one to use it. Some day Esperanto may be more common,
>> 	so it can be used more. 

>What would be the point of an "official language" if one were supposed not to
>use it, but use English instead?   Could you state your idea in an a little 
>more explicit manner?   I don't see the point in declaring a language which
>we don't want to "force" anyone to use, official for any purpose.


	What I tried to say was using Esperanto to _symbolize_ the
	internationality of UU. But the question is what we do with such
	a symbol? Currently, I can think of no other use that giving the
	name of UU in Esperanto rather than English. So perhaps it is just 
	a nice thought that UU would be in this way really international.
	Anyway, any practical benefits of this model would be equal to zero.
	
	Just one more thing about your letter. You said something like
	"any documents of interest could be translated to all languages".
	Say, we have a document in Finnish. How can anyone not knowing
	Finnish say if it is interesting or not and whether or not it
	should be translated?

-- 

	I'm a computer science student - what's your excuse?