Translation:Not languages but people have culture.
The writers of this course totally have a chip on their shoulder.
I bet they've heard people say "If everyone spoke Esperanto, what will happen to the other languages and their culture?" And they totally thought of this comeback as they were writing this course.
I bet they've heard people say "If everyone spoke Esperanto, what will happen to the other languages and their culture?"
That's because non-Esperantists usually think that the purpose of Esperanto is to replace other languages, which is the opposite of the truth.
That's why I prefer to say "Esperantist culture" or "Culture in Esperanto" instead of "Esperanto culture".
Sed oni povas vidi la kulturojn en la lingvoj. La lingvoj parolas pri la kulturoj.
I find this sentence baffling/odd. Languages are always expressions of cultures. The way a culture/a group of people views the world is expressed in its language.
Tolkien made languages specifically because they are expressions of culture.
For example, the word for meal in Mandarin also means rice.
The word for calcium is the same for the word for soccer in Italian. Phonologically, the word for possession of a third person plural is the same as the word for "over yonder" in english (their/there). Your point is interesting, but its not completely coherent. You can't mix synchronic and diachronic factors like that. This is more of a semantic issue than it is fundamentally linguistic.
Which is why esperanto is a form of communication between people of different cultures.
"Not languages but people have culture."
What does this sentence even mean? "Not languages" is an incomplete idea.