sudanglo:I look at the current development of exams and qualifications in Esperanto and renkontigxoj devoted to just learning the language, the whole business of the pseudo professionalization of the teaching of Esperanto, and the linguists engagement in 'scientific' studies of Esperanto and scratch my head in wonder.

What happened to Esperanto being easy for adults to learn?

Seems like you've perhaps never attended one of those "renkontiĝoj devoted to just learning". Your preference is to learn the basics and then simply attend an event, if I recall. I know people who got little out of their first Esperanto convention simply because they didn't have the courage to go up to random people to talk to them; for such a person, a residential course might be the perfect thing to give them the confidence they need to start using the language. Plus, a lot of people have trouble sticking with it, learning alone from a book, and they are able to learn much more effectively with an engaging teacher. Also, you have perhaps forgotten that mass Esperanto classes were common in the early days of Esperanto (where did the Cseh method come from?), so it surely was not the case that every single early Esperanto speaker was self-taught from a book in an isolated room, till they attended their first event.

A course like SES is more like an Esperanto youth convention with a few added classes than anything else; the learning is serious, but classes are generally in the morning only and there are a ton of excursions and concerts and other fun activities in the afternoons. It is hardly sitting in the classroom all day. And it's a great opportunity for people who learn better in a classroom and don't have a physical Esperanto course available anywhere near them. That is, you get all of the benefits of an Esperanto convention (Esperanto immersion in real-world situations) plus the benefit of an Esperanto teacher who is happy to answer all of your questions.

I have had access to various writings from the late 1800s and early 1900s in Esperanto. For good or for ill, I have found them somewhat easier to understand* than many more "modern" texts. The early texts used a relatively limited vocabulary with word building, so that I could "figure out" the words, whereas many more modern texts use a much more extensive vocabulary (i.e., of roots). I agree with sudanglo on the point that Esperanto in theory, at least, is supposed to be (relatively) easy to learn, but in modern times, some authors appear to make it as complex (relatively speaking) as many "ethnic/national" languages, just because they can. What happened to the simple vocabulary and style?

*"Understand" One issue I have had with Esperanto is what I have sometimes called "conglomerated words," words built up from so many affixes surrounding roots that they have become puzzles to be decoded. I have literally zero experience with E-o as a real, spoken language, just as a written code, and I seriously suspect that the "conglomerated words" would be totally unintelligible to me in speech, but in written form I can at least pause over the page and try to puzzle then out.

A funny thing happens with those "kunmetaĵoj". You start off as a beginner and you decode each one individually, parsing it out, looking up parts in the dictionary, trying to determine which portion is root and which portion is an affix.

Then at a certain point, a magic switch clicks in your brain and you no longer have to parse them. You understand instantly, also in speech. It's rare for me to hear a word (or read one) and seriously have to pause over the meaning, even if it's a constructed word. However it's also considered bad style to tack on a hundred affixes so in most cases the complexity is limited.

bartlett22183:.. when I finished the article, I realized that I had not understood it well, despite seeming to know the words. I have had this experience before.

I often have to re-read passages or look words up. But here's a few things that may help: try reading bilingual texts, first making your way through an Esperanto text with the help of the English, to make sure that you understand everything, and then read over the Esperanto without thinking of the English, so that you are thinking in Esperanto. You may find Paul Gubbins' Star in a Night Sky useful for this purpose. I would also go through Marjorie Boulton's Faktoj kaj Fantazioj, if you haven't already done so, and then try Boris Kolker's Vojagxo en Esperanto-Lando. The last one accompanies a correspondence course entirely in Esperanto, which you may find useful.

Also, you have perhaps forgotten that mass Esperanto classes were common in the early days of Esperanto (where did the Cseh method come from?)

You might be right in general, Erinja. But Wikipedio says that Cseh invented the method in 1929 - when Esperanto had been around for 42 years.

My impression is that it was auxtodidakte for a very long time. I can't recall any language learning orientated conferences from the 60's when I started.

And not many of the Esperantists I knew in my youth could be characterised as shrinking violets who would have shunned trying to join in a conversation.

What would have been true in the early days is the very large number of Esperanto clubs where you could practise your Esperanto before going to an international congress.

Of course, nowadays the whole club and society thing has died a death. People largely prefer to stay indoors and watch TV, or surf the net, or indulge in some other entertainment in the comfort of their own homes.

sudanglo:Of course, nowadays the whole club and society thing has died a death.

I don't think so. There excists very lively 'hobby club scence' of live music, theatre, poetry competition, sport etc. Of course there excists lot of 'couch potatoes' and 'Internet addicted folks' but I don't believe that these people represent the mass.

bartlett22183:*"Understand" One issue I have had with Esperanto is what I have sometimes called "conglomerated words," words built up from so many affixes surrounding roots that they have become puzzles to be decoded. I have literally zero experience with E-o as a real, spoken language, just as a written code, and I seriously suspect that the "conglomerated words" would be totally unintelligible to me in speech, but in written form I can at least pause over the page and try to puzzle then out.

Maybe its caused by your natives language difference of analytical versus (i.e. Slavic like) fusional wordbuilding concepts. More or less German language contains both concepts. Generally such words have no chance to survive in spoken communication. In Germany being non-native someones could encounter very often such fusioned written 'words creatures'. Ekzemple 'Schifffahrtsgesellschaft'* (fusion) instead of 'Gesellschaft für Transport per Schiff' which is analytic word building. Latter will be comprehensible much more better in spoken use but first ones remains to be used written.

(*3 letter F are correct)

spreecamper:

bartlett22183:*"Understand" One issue I have had with Esperanto is what I have sometimes called "conglomerated words," words built up from so many affixes surrounding roots that they have become puzzles to be decoded. I have literally zero experience with E-o as a real, spoken language, just as a written code, and I seriously suspect that the "conglomerated words" would be totally unintelligible to me in speech, but in written form I can at least pause over the page and try to puzzle then out.

Maybe its caused by your natives language difference of analytical versus (i.e. Slavic like) fusional wordbuilding concepts. More or less German language contains both concepts. Generally such words have no chance to survive in spoken communication. In Germany being non-native someones could encounter very often such fusioned written 'words creatures'. Ekzemple 'Schifffahrtsgesellschaft'* (fusion) instead of 'Gesellschaft für Transport per Schiff' which is analytic word building. Latter will be comprehensible much more better in spoken use but first ones remains to be used written.

(*3 letter F are correct)

Your point is well taken. There is always the matter of the extent to which native language habits effect one's learning of this or that new language.

For example, I have read complaints about the phonology and phonotactics of Esperanto, in particular that it contains too many consonant clusters (the famous/infamous 'scii', for example). However, my native English does contain many consonant clusters. Maybe not as many as some Slavic languages, but still, quite a few more than many languages around the world. (I have tried to help adult learners of English struggling and failing with these forms.) So E-o's phonotactics do not bother me at all.

On the other hand, although English does use some compounding, it does not do so to the extent of, say, German (despite English being originally a Germanic language). So I have trouble with some of the E-o compounds.

Because most (certainly, not all!) learners of Esperanto are late adolescents or adults, and because the latter especially have difficulty mastering new sounds and structures, I have always been in favor of a simple (whatever that means) style in E-o for the ease of many. Of course, there are those who argue that if E-o is to be a full (again, whatever that means) language, a "high" or literary style should be allowed. OK, up to a point, but if Esperanto is to be truly an international auxiliary language, we have to realize that not everyone is going to be able to understand Nobel-prize winning literature. I started this thread with my issue of trying to understand a relatively straightforward periodical article.

BTW is there a way to show us a sample of the article? Could it be that the language the article used is not so straightforward as you suppose?

erinja:BTW is there a way to show us a sample of the article? Could it be that the language the article used is not so straightforward as you suppose?

Sorry, erinja, but because the article deals with a matter highly personal and delicate to me that I do not want to go into publicly at this time, I prefer not. But again, there is the matter of "simple" or "high" style.

bartlett22183:For example, I have read complaints about the phonology and phonotactics of Esperanto, in particular that it contains too many consonant clusters (the famous/infamous 'scii', for example). However, my native English does contain many consonant clusters.

During study of Interlingua I was very surprized that Interlingua sets strategies of Romanic native speakers into Ia's prototype concept to ensure sonority of words. I.e. letter 'i' and 'a' are inserted (before suffixes) if some consonant cluster disturbs sonority of words. I learnt some Esperanto before so I didn't expect that inside some Conlang concept. '-mente' adverb suffix also seems to have some sound improvement idea behind. That 'i' and 'a' sound elements doesn't disturb the meaning of the word. For me the sound of some language is very important that's why I not feel complete comfortable with Esperanto. Its a pity that Zamenhof didn't take care more of additional sound elements inside Esperanto.