There seems to be a lot of discussion on reform/change to the Esperanto language.

An oft recurring theme is that natural languages are not subject to reform so why should Esperanto be treated any differently.

As a native English speaker I have observed the English language being changed by several means:

- Social activism. The word "gay" used to mean "happy" until it was adopted by homosexuals.

-Ease of use. The breathy "wh" sound has been replaced by the "w" sound.

-Government decree. The word "inflammable" was changed to "flammable" because newcomers to English were misunderstanding it to mean non flammable.

-Effect of mass media. The phrase " Oh my god" is now used where there used to be many different expressions.

Some of these changes could be described as natural evolution, others are examples of deliberate change/reform by groups of users of the language.

English and Esperanto are both living languages. If this can happen in English then why can it not also happen in Esperanto?

Without any doubt the languages are subjects to numerous spelling and even grammatical reforms.

Esperanto is afraid of reforms most likely because it is not a real language, and it will not survive the reform: people who speak it are doing so just out their whims, not to get some real benefit.

So they are just trying to keep their (dwindling) numbers while everyone around learns English and is afraid of them

Bemused:If this can happen in English then why can it not also happen in Esperanto?

It can and it does! Claude Piron wrote an article about this: Evolution Is Proof of Life

Esperanto has changed naturally, and the reforms you point out in English are single cases here or there, and the rest are language evolution. And Lgg, what the hell are you on about? not a real language, dwindling numbers???? For one, it is the language of whole families, two dwindling numbers? I'm a recent learner of this language. 150 years ago it had one speaker... now it has millions.

Evildela:For one, it is the language of whole families, two dwindling numbers? I'm a recent learner of this language. 150 years ago it had one speaker... now it has millions.

Which families? Anecdotes doesn't make facts.

Most speakers of Esperanto died of old age by now. The few hundreds, not 'millions', speaking it now, are not enough.

The question of whether or not Esperanto is a real language can lead to some very unproductive discussion.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it doesn't seems too outrageous to refer to it as a duck.

The truth is that Esperanto has some natural language qualities, but at the same time it has features which are very rare in natural languages, and the attitudes of the community of speakers of Esperanto to the language are also unusual.

Yet one can't help feeling that an extra-terrestrial visitor overhearing two Esperantists talking in Esperanto, would immediately consider Esperanto to be a human language.

If Esperanto is scared of reforms, it is of the reforms of upstarts who have only been learning the language for a couple of weeks and think it perfectly alright to invalidate what has been sanctioned by testing over extended periods.

For example, the Esperantists rightly reject a new spelling of the language, or the dismissal of the accusative, or the adoption of 'ci' - to name but a few proposals I have seen recently in the forums.

There is a place for those whose interest is in Conlanging, but not within the Esperanto-speaking community. Such people should join the Conlang Society.

Natural evolution is normal and inevitable. As such, it doesn't undermine the integrity of the language. But unnatural evolution (reformism) is dangerous, for even the foundations won't be spared. For a better analogy, reforming E-o would be like reforming the USSR. It would most certainly end in collapse.*

*In commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the USSR today.

Bemused, most of what you describe is natural evolution, and Esperanto does evolve in all of those ways. The "government decree" is something we don't have in Esperanto. But the US Government can suggest a word and people can choose to use it - or not. Similarly, the Academy of Esperanto can recommend a word and people can use it or not. Governments and organizations can recommend and decree all they want, but when it regards speaking a language, it's the speakers who rule the roost.

New Esperanto words and evolving definitions don't qualify as language reforms. Those are natural evolution.

When we talk about language reforms in Esperanto, we are usually referring to beginners (and very occasionally non-beginners) who have all kinds of "great ideas" for "improving" the language.

Esperanto is not open to these kinds of reforms. It's akin to first-year English students coming in and saying "English verbs are too complicated, let's change them to make them all completely regular; I go, you go, he go, etc; past tense; I did go, you did go, he did go, etc. I be, you be, he be; I did be, you did be, he did be, etc.

This wouldn't go over well with English speakers. But that's what a small (but visible, and annoying) minority of beginners in Esperanto do all the time. Somehow they think you can make sudden large changes to Esperanto, rather than letting it evolve naturally. Some of these beginners lay off when you explain how things work. Some, however, become agitated and accusatory. They think that because someone created this language in the past, that it can be edited by any person.

It's true that people can speak Esperanto any way they like. But they shouldn't expect to get a welcoming reception from people who speak the language as it's been spoken for more than 120 years.

Most people who learn to speak Esperanto well have grown out of whatever reformist tendencies they once had.

That's why I always recommend that someone learn the language thoroughly, and then reevaluate whether it truly needs reforming. Most people, having learned the language, conclude that whatever minuscule benefit that reforms might bring would be outweighed by the damage caused by loss of community cohesion and loss of language stability.

Many reformist-minded people argue that more people would learn Esperanto if only we would "improve" it.

The fact is that most people decide not to learn Esperanto without ever having learned a single fact about its grammar. These people aren't even aware that Esperanto has special characters, so how would removing special characters make them decide to learn it? They aren't aware of ANY of the grammatical details that reformists have pointed to over the years as "reasons the language is too complicated". So how would removing these details cause them to learn it, if they don't even know those things exist in the first place? The logic doesn't hold up.

erinja:The fact is that most people decide not to learn Esperanto without ever having learned a single fact about its grammar. These people aren't even aware that Esperanto has special characters, so how would removing special characters make them decide to learn it? They aren't aware of ANY of the grammatical details that reformists have pointed to over the years as "reasons the language is too complicated". So how would removing these details cause them to learn it, if they don't even know those things exist in the first place? The logic doesn't hold up.

+1!

lgg:Which families? Anecdotes doesn't make facts.

We have an Esperanto family here in Sydney, thus you fail, with a denaska child. I started learning Esperanto two years ago, my mother six months ago, my girl and soon to be wife is also now studying the language, and her parents which don't speak a word of English are considering it, but they are very old.

sudanglo:but at the same time it has features which are very rare in natural languages

I'm curious as to what features your talking about?