Dear lgg,

I agree. These bonzo Esperanto speakers with their cult mentality insist on clinging to their outmoded Fundament and their ridiculous language. They are so hard-headed and dogmatic that they refuse all of the many wonderful proposals for reform, and furthermore, they insist on using an outdated alphabet that is hard to type and contains letters that are found in no other language in the world.

I suggest that you delete your account and leave these cultists behind, and find another community that will appreciate your wonderful ideas.

Sincerely,
Erinja

erinja:Dear lgg,

I agree. These bonzo Esperanto speakers with their cult mentality insist on clinging to their outmoded Fundament and their ridiculous language. They are so hard-headed and dogmatic that they refuse all of the many wonderful proposals for reform, and furthermore, they insist on using an outdated alphabet that is hard to type and contains letters that are found in no other language in the world.

I suggest that you delete your account and leave these cultists behind, and find another community that will appreciate your wonderful ideas.

Sincerely,
Erinja

/sign

Why on earth do you continue to engage with this person?

Miland:The phenomenon of people wanting to suggest "improvements" to Esperanto is well-known. Ido came into being for this very reason, nearly 100 years ago. Result: where was the last international convention of Ido that you heard of (have you heard of one?).

Actually, Ido is just over one hundred years old (1907, as I recall), and some Idists actually do hold conventions, although so far as I know they are almost always held in Europe, and the number of attendees is, of course, much smaller than the numbers at E-o Universalaj Kongresoj. The same for Interlingua. Both of these languages do have some real, active users.

Miland:It is better to learn Esperanto as it is, rather than make it into something one would like it to be. This applies especially to beginners.

To be sure, and the same applies to all other genuinely used conIALs. If a language has worked in the real world (Esperanto or any of the few others that have had some genuine use), then don't presume that a superficial acquaintance makes you (figuratively) an expert qualified to change it.

Why do people always dis Esperanto letters? I love the little hats, they make my language look so exotic, plus in this modern age they aren't exactly hard to type... like seriously. What I find boring about all the other, attempts at language creation is their fear of not trying something new... they all look like English spelt differently.

Also in regards to reforming Esperanto, that's something that just won't happen... so give up already, you may be able... if your a well known highly respected Esperantist effect small, insignificant parts of the language. But not even old Mr Z could rock in here now, and declare reforms without getting kicked off his high horse.

The letters with hats may be less problematic, but the Ido reform of the Esperanto agreement between adjective and noun in plurals appeals to me. Long strings of words with plural endings is a real mouthful, and unnecessary for meaning (I'm sure someone will put me right on that).

German and Dutch and Chinese and other languages have all had reforms in their (much older) spelling and construction to increase clarity and reduce problems, and these are official languages spoken by millions every day. And...it didn't even stop e.g. German being German or cause chaotic, linguistic collapse. The idea that reform doesn't work doesn't really reflect working reality.

Is it too much to consider that Esperanto perhaps realy does have some awkward bits that might benefit from attention? Zamenhof wasn't omnipotent, we all know the problems that come from treating things rigidly when change is considered as sacrilege. It looks like stubborn fundamentalism.

Maybe fluent Esperantists are not the best judge of this; their learning curve has already flattened out, the mountain has already been climbed. What's wrong with making the ascent for others potentially easier?

Right, now the missus has just ordered me to bed...it's Christmas morning after all! Ĝojan Kristnaskon al ĉies!

Vestitor:Maybe fluent Esperantists are not the best judge of this...

You mentioned reforms made to the Dutch language. I presume they were made by adult native speakers of Dutch, were they not?

In my view, only fluent Esperantists have the required knowledge to even consider making any changes.

If you are still in the learning process, then it is quite possible that you have just misunderstood something, perhaps not fully grasped a particular area of the language etc.

Vestitor:Long strings of words with plural endings is a real mouthful, and unnecessary for meaning

The simple answer is that Esperanto's grammar and alphabet are the part of its foundational documents, and that if you were to change basic aspects of these things, the language would no longer be Esperanto, but a new language based on Esperanto.

But I'll ignore that for a second and talk about the practical aspects of what you're talking about.

A minor spelling reform is do-able for languages that have a government behind them and an enforcement apparatus (i.e. the new spelling must be taught in schools). It doesn't change the way anyone talks, it just changes the way some things are written. Even those reforms, however, don't always take hold. We had a spelling reform early in American history. Some of the spellings took hold (color/jail/center) but some did not (ake/soop/wimmen - that is, ache, soup, and women).

But you aren't talking about a spelling reform; you're talking about changes to the grammar. I can't imagine the Academie Francaise suddenly saying "From now on, adjectives will be invariable; they will no longer agree with nouns in gender and number".

It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Texts could be reprinted with the new grammar. But who is going to force people to speak with the "new French" with simpler adjectives? Maybe children will do it at school when forced, but at home, they will speak with their parents as they always have. And it's very likely that the French people would declare a national strike and refuse to accept these changes to their language. It sounds absurd to think that some organisation can suddenly decree that now, your adjectives will not agree with your nouns. What are you going to do next, get rid of genders entirely? Make the definite and indefinite articles invariable?

These are changes that happen over time, and they wouldn't go over well if you tried to force them on people. Some of it might take hold, but not all. People do what they want to do, and a language academy can suggest all it wants, people are going to talk the way they're going to talk, when all is said and done.

As far as Esperanto is concerned, many people believe that it is more open to reform than 'natural' languages, because someone created it. But early Esperantists learned that once you get on the "reform train" it's hard to get off. If I put your reforms into effect, then I should consider the next guy's reforms, and the next guy's. Then who wants to learn Esperanto, this language that obviously isn't even "finished"? Constant reforms kill languages. That's what early Esperantists learned from watching other international language projects die the death of a thousand reforms.

Regarding the agreement of adjectives and nouns - I believe it wasn't present in Zamenhof's early drafts of Esperanto, but he added it in when he saw that it helped permit flexible word order. It was a slight nuisance for me when I was learning, but I've found a number of times over the years that it helps me match up which adjectives go with which nouns in a sentence. With Esperanto's flexible word order, that extra bit of agreement can provide you some clarity in cases of potential doubt.

And I agree with Chainy. Would you really give a first-year student of Dutch the authority to "reform" a language happily spoken by millions of people? Esperanto is a much smaller language, of course, but it's ridiculous to let someone change the language based on what they personally find difficult or illogical. Each person has different ideas of what makes sense, and if you let each person have their stab at it, there would probably be nothing left of the language at the end.

I liked Miland's quote from Butler's book, about learning the language before changing it. Things aren't always obvious to the student.

This is especially the case with Esperanto, because nearly every Esperanto speaker has vivid memories of which aspects of the language they found difficult or confusing when they learned. We are much more sympathetic to the plight of the learner than we would be as a native speaker of a language, who never really had to study it.

MANY Esperanto beginners have all kinds of ideas for improving the languages. I certainly did. When their command of the language increases, they realize that certain things are more useful than they thought, and they grow out of the perceived need to reform the language (though I think that almost anyone has a couple of things in mind that they wish Zamenhof had done differently, though they are not pushing to change those things).

erinja:The simple answer is that Esperanto's grammar and alphabet are the part of its foundational documents, and that if you were to change basic aspects of these things, the language would no longer be Esperanto, but a new language based on Esperanto.

Not true. Many languages changed their spelling or even grammar, but still are there. Russian language hadn't stopped to be Russian without gender distinction in plural and unification of е and ѣ. German hadn't stopped being German when 'Thal' became 'Tal'.

These are changes that happen over time, and they wouldn't go over well if you tried to force them on people. Some of it might take hold, but not all. People do what they want to do, and a language academy can suggest all it wants, people are going to talk the way they're going to talk, when all is said and done.

Zamenhoff explicitly allowed any kind of changes to Esperanto, as long as they are facultative to Fundamental rules.

Then who wants to learn Esperanto, this language that obviously isn't even "finished"? Constant reforms kill languages. That's what early Esperantists learned from watching other international language projects die the death of a thousand reforms.

And who wants to learn Esperanto now? A few hundreds of thousands of speakers after 125 years of stagnation called 'stability' is not a sign of successful development policy. People still learn not standartized, constantly changing (some phrases used in '80s need explanations now, for example) English language in millions. Esperanto should not think about a small bunch of people who speak it now, but of 6 billions of people who doesn't.

lgg:Esperanto should not think about a small bunch of people who speak it now, but of 6 billions of people who doesn't.

And perhaps they shouldn't think too about a small bunch of trolls.