ludomastro:@Vestitor:
I think I failed to explain how I see MASTERY versus FLUENCY. I see MASTERY as something that only comes with a lifetime of use. FLUENCY comes from time well invested as erinja pointed out. What you are describing sounds to me like basic communication skills. Being able to ask & respond to simple questions, order food, get a cab, etc.

That's clearly not what I described. I mean conversing about more than the weather. Is there really any way to construe either fluency or mastery as meaning asking for drinks and getting cabs?

@erinja
No worries. I value your opinion ... we just happen to disagree.

@Vestidor
Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I would certainly not argue that such a degree of simplicity would constitute mastery. I hope I gave no offense.

Vestitor:
That's clearly not what I described. I mean conversing about more than the weather. Is there really any way to construe either fluency or mastery as meaning asking for drinks and getting cabs?

Maybe some answers can be found inside edukado.net/ekzamenoj/referenckadro description.

KER entry at eo.wikipedia.org

ludomastro:@erinja
No worries. I value your opinion ... we just happen to disagree.

I'm interested in your point of view, though. How many hours per week of study are you counting on, if you think it would take 4-5 years to fluency? And what study methods?

I don't disagree that it could take 4-5 years for some people to achieve fluency. But I do firmly believe that if someone spent more time studying, if Esperanto was genuinely their serious hobby, they could become fluent in less time than that, even limiting themselves only to printed text.

I know that this is the case because I personally reached a pretty good degree written fluency in a similar amount of time, and I was mostly limited to written methods (paper letters, e-mail, and instant messaging). Skype didn't exist yet. I was in high school and not in a position to be travelling to distant Esperanto events. I did attend an Esperanto weekend in that time (about 2 days of Esperanto), when I was still firmly a beginner, and I didn't understand a great lot of what was going on.

At the end of that period, I went on a trip abroad and met with an Esperanto speaker there. I was able to communicate with relative ease, though my only previous experience with real oral Esperanto communication was a couple of years prior, and at the time, I wasn't in a position to take full advantage of it.

I didn't study Esperanto particularly hard and I know that if I had studied more, I could have progressed much faster. For example, I rarely did flash cards or studied vocabulary lists to learn new words. I just learned them as I needed them in my written correspondence. Esperanto was an occasional hobby for me, and I know that if I had really thrown myself into learning, a couple of hours a week at least, I would have achieved results faster. And even with my completely lazy study habits, I still reached near fluency in about the time frame you're talking about. It would have been faster if I had a book for reference and could proceed at my own pace. I did the postal course and I had to wait for lessons to come back with corrections before moving to the next one (which I received with the corrections). I had no reference materials other than the learning materials in the postal course, and other than the short grammar in my dictionary (Thank you, John Wells!). It took me probably a year to get through that postal course - six months of actively doing and sending out lessons, plus six months where I got busy at school and stopped doing anything Esperanto at all.

I can only agree with Erinja that it could take 4-5 years for some people to achieve fluency. Yes, for the people who don't care to put just too much effort into learning the language. But I am absolutely sure that when using good learning techniques (flashcards, scheduled repetitions, short phrases for memorising instead of single words when ever possible etc) and working 30...40 hours per week, nearly everyone would be able to build up an impressive vocabulary in several months and develop fairly good grammar skills at the same time. In case of esperanto, a problem occurs in finding surroundings where only Esperanto is spoken and so the language immersion method for obtaining fluency is not likely to be an option. What a pity! But I am pretty confirmed that if one has a lot of free time and is willing to use it for learning Esperanto, one year or even less is quite realistic term for obtaining fluency...

Well, and nearly all this is true also for other languages. I myself, for example, obtained fluency in Russian in 2-3 months after I already had vocabulary and grammar. I had learned Russian at school and in the university during ten years and though I could cite Pushkin and Lermontov by heart, I actually was not able to communicate in Russian in real life. A couple of months in the army did miracles in activating my vocabulary as the only language I heard and spoke was Russian. In one year I already thought preferably in Russian as well... But I have not obtained fluency in English though the vocabulary I have obtained by now would allow this freely. Why? Because I've not been in only English-speaking surroundings for more than 8 days...

A couple of years ago I also started learning Spanish - about 20...30 hours a week during about 6 weeks (unfortunately, I did not have more time) following more than a half of a year without any practice and then two weeks in Spain (intense language courses by BabylonIdiomas in Sevilla). It was awfully interesting - and pretty difficult as well. By the end of the second week I was able to keep a simple conversation. In 2013 I plan to spend a whole month in Costa Rica and two weeks in Sevilla, again with the Babylon Idiomas language school. And I am pretty sure - after that I'll speak in Spanish freely (being still far from obtaining fluency, of course).

This way or another, I am not especially talented in languages. I do remember very well what a pain it was even to understand the logic in both in Russian and English. Estonian, my native language, is very different. And both languages have a lot of sounds that are nearly impossible for a 'pure-bred' estonians to produce! Esperanto and Spanish seem to conflict less with my language intuition.

robinast:
But I am absolutely sure that when using good learning techniques (flashcards, scheduled repetitions, short phrases for memorising instead of single words when ever possible etc)

That learning technique Flashing Card/Lindner Lernkartei doesn't fits everybody needs. It will need some "conveyor belt worker mentality" to like that "hardcore learning" style. I prefer to learn inside context. I.e. reading books which lets some creativity room to sort new things inside.

qwertz:
That learning technique Flashing Card/Lindner Lernkartei doesn't fits everybody needs. It will need some "conveyor belt worker mentality" to like that "hardcore learning" style. I prefer to learn inside context. I.e. reading books which lets some creativity room to sort new things inside.

Well, maybe you are right... But I actually do not see how using flashcards prohibits learning in context. Fe one thing I do in learning Spanish is reading a book ("La Sombra del Viento" at the moment) and if I find phrases (or occasionally, single words as well) I like or think them to be useful, i write them down on the paper at first and then memorize using some flash-card software (KWordQuiz in Linux). For me it works as the most effective method. Simply reading is not as effective, hammering single words without any context is both boring and ineffective...

I only spend a few hours a week on Esperanto. I find it interesting but my hardcore hobby is role playing games - hence my screen-name. If I were willing to devote that amount of time to Esperanto, I would undoubtedly progress faster.

Role-playing games are clearly top priority though.

As I have said before, I have a problem with applying to Esperanto, standards (like the KER criteria) which were developed in relation to command of a foreign national language.

1. Communication with native speakers does not come into play with regard to Esperanto, and appropriate measures of mastery in relation to shopping, watching TV, filling in ones tax return and many other mundane activities of national life are not applicable in the international setting which Esperanto is designed for.

2. Although national languages differ in the areas where they present special difficulty, each national language has it's own areas where special attention needs to be applied by the foreign learner. And any criterion of a high level of command of a national language would encompass such areas.

But in the case of Esperanto, I would be hard pressed to identify which aspects of the language present special stumbing blocks at the higher levels.

3. Each natural language carries with it a burden of cultural knowledge that can't be skipped by the foreign learner if he is to be deemed advanced. It's hard to see what would be a comparable aspect of Esperanto.

4. It doesn't seem possible to develop a scale of difficulty for Esperanto that is any way similar to what you might develop for a national language. Many aspects of Esperanto that are childishly simple for the student tend to be universally complex in the national languages.

And inversely some issues of vocabulary or how to say X, which present no special diffculty in a national language (you only need to consult a good dictionary) may result in some degree of head-scratching by Esperantist spertuloj.

In short, mastery of Esperanto requires its own criteria, which must be different to those appropriate to a national language.

In any case, a relationship of authority in connection with the foreign language is rarely obtained by the foreign learner of national language, who must continually defer to the native speaker

Such a native-speaker-like connection with Esperanto is not uncommon among experienced Esperantists.