Meaning: The quote by Edward Sapir touches on the debate surrounding constructed languages, such as Esperanto, and their perceived inferiority to national languages in terms of richness of connotation. Edward Sapir was an influential linguist and anthropologist known for his work in the field of linguistic relativity, which suggests that the structure of a language affects its speakers' cognition.

Sapir's quote reflects a common criticism of constructed languages, which are designed rather than evolved naturally like national languages. Critics argue that constructed languages lack the depth and richness of connotation found in natural languages, which have developed over centuries within specific cultural and historical contexts. This criticism raises questions about the purpose and value of constructed languages in relation to natural languages.

Constructed languages are typically created with specific goals in mind, such as ease of learning, international communication, or cultural unity. Esperanto, for example, was developed in the late 19th century with the aim of fostering global understanding and cooperation. Proponents of constructed languages argue that their simplicity and regularity make them more accessible and easier to learn than many natural languages, which can be complex and irregular.

Despite their intended benefits, constructed languages often face skepticism and criticism from linguists and language enthusiasts. Sapir's quote acknowledges that the supposed inferiority of constructed languages in terms of richness of connotation does not necessarily undermine the idea of creating such languages. Instead, it prompts a deeper consideration of the purpose and function of constructed languages in the broader linguistic landscape.

One way to approach the debate is to recognize that constructed languages serve different purposes than natural languages. While natural languages are deeply embedded in the cultures and histories of their speakers, constructed languages are intentionally designed to be neutral and accessible to people from diverse linguistic backgrounds. This inherent difference in purpose may explain why constructed languages may appear to lack the nuanced connotations found in natural languages.

It is also important to consider the evolving nature of language and communication. Language is not static; it continuously adapts and changes in response to social, technological, and cultural developments. Constructed languages, despite their initial design, have the potential to evolve and accrue richness of connotation over time as they are used and shaped by their speakers.

Furthermore, the value of constructed languages should not be solely judged based on their connotative richness compared to natural languages. Instead, their impact on facilitating international communication, fostering cultural exchange, and promoting linguistic diversity should be taken into account. Constructed languages offer a unique platform for transcending linguistic barriers and promoting understanding across different communities.

In conclusion, Edward Sapir's quote highlights the complex dynamics surrounding constructed languages and their perceived inferiority to natural languages in terms of connotative richness. While this criticism raises valid points, it is essential to recognize the diverse purposes and potential of constructed languages within the broader context of linguistic diversity and global communication. Constructed languages, despite their differences from natural languages, have the capacity to contribute to the richness and complexity of human communication in a rapidly interconnected world.