Fenris_kcf:Every language is under a constant process of development. If it is not, it will die out sooner or later. I really don't get the sense behind this opinion "it's working well enough, so don't dare to change anything!". You know what: English also works well enough, so why bother with something like Esperanto? German would also work, as well as Chinese or Icelandic. Maybe I'm too much an idealist, but if there is a better solution, then I aim towards it, instead of staying where I am.

OMG How many TIMES PEROPLE, excuse me while I walk away and punch a wall...

Ok back now, lets start again.

YES English is a developing language, its evolving naturally, but is not NOT open to being reformed. This is what's happening with Esperanto. If you want proof of that, than look into the early history of Esperanto, compared to now. Example: ŝati, never meant what it does now, it evolved, if you study the language you will find many of these changes abundant. Now look at your own comment, people have always wanted to REFORM English. Have they succeeded? No? So what needed to be done inorder to make a nice easy language? Old Zam invented a new one! Brillent!

...Now Esperanto is over 100 years old, its presence it vast, and no-one controls it. So you want to reform it? Therefore what must you do logically? CREATE a new one! as that’s the only way you could ever get a consensus on anything of this scale, thus ... starting again, with a new language.

Have you ever managed to convince 50 people to do one thing? that involves investing time in additional learning... Now knock that up to a scale of 2 million – that we know about.

Fenris_kcf:

Razlem:But Esperanto is still not an easy language. It may be easier to learn than English or French, but some qualities of the language are quite complex, like the '-n'ding.

So placing the suffix "-n" on an accusative object is "quite complex" - aha...

What are the exact rules governing its usage, and why are those rules the way they are? Why 'n'? Why at the end of the word rather than the beginning or middle? Questions only Zamenhof could answer, methinks.

After studying the basic structures of a fair amount of different languages, it becomes pretty clear how complex these different systems can be. With natural languages, the explanation to the above questions are answered simply with 'evolution', with theories provided by the studies of historical linguistics that show growing complexity (or a reversion to simplicity) within a language family. But Esperanto did not grow in the same way- these factors, the 'n'ding, were decided by one person in an instant. They are reflections of the languages known by their creator. In this case, Zamenhof borrowed a grammatical element with thousands of years of development behind it without explaining why (or if he has, I would very much like to read the explanation).

razlem: In this case, Zamenhof borrowed a grammatical element with thousands of years of development behind it without explaining why (or if he has, I would very much like to read the explanation).

The explanation for n-ending is as simple as that:

because it goes well with the rest of the language.

Evildela:In 2010 a survey was carried out on Esperanto Google about the use of our special letters, that are apparently according to some 'hard' to write.

That means nothing, as the entire Esperanto corpus is so negligent that it's even impossible for Google to build a translator basing on it.
Using non-standard diacritics kills 90% of potential language learners. It's not 19th century, people no longer write.

lgg:

Evildela:In 2010 a survey was carried out on Esperanto Google about the use of our special letters, that are apparently according to some 'hard' to write.

That means nothing, as the entire Esperanto corpus is so negligent that it's even impossible for Google to build a translator basing on it.
Using non-standard diacritics kills 90% of potential language learners. It's not 19th century, people no longer write.

Soon the world will have to learn Chinese characters. Then you'll miss Esperanto.

hebda999:because it goes well with the rest of the language.

It doesn't. Using case system only for S/O-distinction is stupid. Using case for differentiate locative/ellative function of same prepositions in language with 2 cases is stupid. Randomly excluding numerals and articles from having cases is stupid. That one useless case feels like fishbone in a throat and kills another 50% of poor learners who got past weird letters.

hebda999:

lgg:

Evildela:In 2010 a survey was carried out on Esperanto Google about the use of our special letters, that are apparently according to some 'hard' to write.

That means nothing, as the entire Esperanto corpus is so negligent that it's even impossible for Google to build a translator basing on it.
Using non-standard diacritics kills 90% of potential language learners. It's not 19th century, people no longer write.

Soon the world will have to learn Chinese characters. Then you'll miss Esperanto.

Tell me about it... I'm studying Chinese now, and just the grammar behind their number words/which is like remembering french gender but on a scale of 50! is more complex than Esperanto's entire grammar - at least to me. Anyways I've come to the conclusion that lgg doesn't actually read anything I say, so now on I'll just ignore trying to explain things to him (as hard is it to ignore a troll)

Evildela:...Now Esperanto is over 100 years old, its presence it vast, and no-one controls it. So you want to reform it? Therefore what must you do logically? CREATE a new one!

It's presence is negligent. If you want to judge Esperanto as natural language, that would mean it's utter failure, as even optimistic estimations of its speakers mark it as dying language. A failed attempt of building of international language killed by superior ones.

On the other hand, if we judge Esperanto as planned language, we can attribute its failures to actual design details and amend them. Noone should care about its current speakers, as their numbers are negligent as compared to intended audience.

The cases for nouns, adjectives and ADVERBS (?!) are clearly complications for a language which was built as more simple alternative to existing international languages. It should be gone.

And come on, "la lingvo internacia?" That's just ugly.

Evildela:YES English is a developing language, its evolving naturally, but is not NOT open to being reformed. This is what's happening with Esperanto. If you want proof of that, than look into the early history of Esperanto, compared to now. Example: ŝati, never meant what it does now, it evolved, if you study the language you will find many of these changes abundant.

You see? The language changed and it did not disappear.

Evildela:Now look at your own comment, people have always wanted to REFORM English. Have they succeeded? No?

So if something doesn't happen, it means it is good the way it is?

Evildela:So what needed to be done inorder to make a nice easy language? Old Zam invented a new one! Brillent!

Indeed. And he announced to be property of the community.

Evildela:...Now Esperanto is over 100 years old, its presence it vast, and no-one controls it.

That's not true.

Evildela:So you want to reform it? Therefore what must you do logically? CREATE a new one! as that’s the only way you could ever get a consensus on anything of this scale, thus ... starting again, with a new language.

Oh yes...
"Hey, Mister: The steering-weel of the car I bought, pulls a little to the left."
"IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN CREATE YOUR OWN CAR!"
(OK, not a really good comparison, since nothing is "bought", but I hope you get my point on this)

Evildela:Have you ever managed to convince 50 people to do one thing? that involves investing time in additional learning... Now knock that up to a scale of 2 million – that we know about.

Oh, you think I was talking about single persons changing a language? Then you got me completely wrong. An example from the German language: In 1996 there was an orthography reform. Do you believe that this was initiated by one bored person?

Because you didn't seem to get my point: I am against such big reforms like dropping out the -n for the accusative. What I critizise is this mentality, that a language has to stay as it is; no matter if we talk about Esperanto or any other language.

Fenris_kcf

Please don't think I'm ignoring you, but I've jumped through this hoop a dozen times before, and even I myself when I first started studying the language thought I could make improvements (thus this will be my last response to you)

You won't be the first, or the last to come here suggesting changes. For your info, what I'm trying to say is that languages evolve naturally, but the Core, the soul of the language generally stays the same, except maybe over a thousand years. And this was before technology came along and allowed mass media to stabilize these changes.

In your reference to my comment of "no-one controls it" I'm sorry say but you a totally wrong. Yes we have an academy, but it dosn't make new surgestions, it usually just makes things offical after they have been used for long periods. The only times it has gone against the natural flow, it has usually failed in establishing any reforms. Example the academy suggested komputero for computer, while the rest of the Esperanto community decided on komputilo. The biggest thing the academy ever did was make -io an offical land affix compared to -ujo. And this achieved very little but bring an extra affix into the equation, as both are widely used. In your reference to the German reforms, well only small non-important parts of those reforms have accepted by the mainstream community according to your own link.

If anyone is SERIOUS about changing some small aspects of Esperanto, than become a famous / respected Esperanto author, join the academy, propose a change, and hope for the best. Because besides that you'll just end up barking up a tree.