Article

A Comparison of Unish Grammar with Esperanto

Dong-Young Lee 1
Author Information & Copyright
1Sejong University

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

The purpose of this paper lies in claiming that the grammar of Unish, which has been being developed at Sejong University, is simpler, more logical, and more regular in many aspects than that of Esperanto, which was created more than a century ago. The validity of this claim is checked by comparing Unish with Esperanto with regard to several main parts of grammar such as the formation of interrogative sentences and passive sentences, the system and use of personal pronouns and relative pronouns, the nonuse of expletives, and the non-occurrence of agreement in a noun phrase. On the basis of these comparisons this pa per concludes that it is easier to learn and use Unish than Esperanto.

Keywords: universal language; Unish; Esperanto; comparison of grammars; principles of simplicity; logicality; regularity

References

1.

Choo, M. 1996. The Need for a Universal Language and Methods of Its Creation as Suggested by Hangul. Journal of Universal Language 1, 5-10.

2.

Choo, M. 2001. The Need for "Unish", a Universal Language and the Principles of its Development. Journal of Universal Language 2, 3-14.

3.

Choo, M., E. Kwak, D. Lee, H. Park, Y. Chung, 1. Tak, T. Akiko, & K. Bae. 2000. Seykyeye-uy Kaypal Panghyang [Directions for Developing Unish]. The Second Seminar on Unish in 2000. Seoul: Sejong University.

4.

Chung, Y. 1996. An International Language for the World to Come. Journal of Universal Language 1, 56-70.

5.

Chung, Y. 2001. Borrowing for a Universal Language. Journal of Universal Language 2, 24-33.

6.

Comrie, B. 1996. Natural and Artificial International Languages: A Typologist's Assessment. Journal of Universal Language 1, 35- 55.

7.

Diamond, 1. 1996. Sejong's Achievement, as Viewed by an American Admirer. Journal of Universal Language 1, 11-19. Esterhill, F. 2002. Interlanguage and 20th Century Scientific Communication. Journal of Universal Language 3, 17-33. Hausser, R. 2002. Overcoming Language Barriers by Means of Computers. Journal of Universal Language 3, 35-54.

8.

Kim, S. 2001. The Landscape of Languages at the Commencement of the 21st Century. Journal of Universal Language 2, 15-23.

9.

Kim, S. & S. Read. 1999. Like WTO, Why Not WCO for a Global Language? Journal of Sejong Languages 5, 83-93.

10.

Large, A. 1996. The Prospects for an International Language. Journal of Universal Language 1, 20-34.

11.

Large, A. 2002. The New Babel: Language Barriers on the World Wide Web. Journal of Universal Language 3, 77-95.

12.

Li, H. 1991. Esperanto-Korea Korea-Esperanto Vortaro [Esperanto- Korean Korean-Esperanto Dictionary]. Seoul: Cayu Munko [Freedom Library].

13.

Park, K. 1989. Kukceye Eyspeylanto Munpep [The Grammar of Es- peranto, an International Language]. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.

JUL Research Ethics Workshop

July 1-2, 2020   

For further detailed information, please contact us (unish@sejong.ac.kr).


I don't want to open this window for a day.

JUL Research Ethics Workshop

January 8-9, 2020   

For further detailed information, please contact us (unish@sejong.ac.kr).


I don't want to open this window for a day.