Alkanadi:

Personally, I would rank speakers in the following order as far as my ease in understanding them: 1. Americans and Canadians / 2. Other native English speakers. / 3. Germanic and Nordic language speakers / 4. Slavic language speakers / 5. Romance language speakers / 6. Asian language speakers.

Exactly. I would rate them almost in the same order.

I wasn't referring to speaking. I was just referring to written text. I didn't want to give examples because I don't want to hurt people's feelings, but maybe I will be more specific.

I find it really hard to understand Russians in the forums. Is it because I am an English speaker? Do they find us hard to understand?

I think that this ranking is primarily caused by beginner mistakes (or experienced laziness ). I can almost always understand "bad" (incorrect) American Esperanto because I can see right through it to what they were trying to say, mostly when they try to word-for-word translate from English, use colloquialisms, or use incorrect words. "Bad" Chinese Esperanto is not at all transparent to me, as I don't know Chinese or what types of mistakes a Chinese person might make. As sudanglo said, this is a learning site and you will see a lot of posts from beginners.

You also have the Esperantic differences that might make a beginner stumble, like adverbial participles, accusative as motion, etc.

As for the Russians, some of them are indeed hard to understand, but others are perfectly comprehensible. I would again chalk it up to mistakes or slipping into local/national phrases when speaking to other Russians or people from that region. I am guilty of the same when speaking to other Americans/Canadians/Britons/Australians/etc.

One thing is for sure, though; when I read esperanto from a known spertulo I can almost always understand them regardless of where they are from. If you come across grammatical mistakes or nonsensical sentences, you are most likely not dealing with a spertulo.

Alkanadi:I have noticed that in the Esperanto Forums I can understand English speakers the best. People from the UK, America, Australia, ect... I have a harder time understanding others. I have to put a lot more effort into figuring out what they are saying.

Is this because I am an English speaker and other English speakers use language similar to the way I use it? Or, is it because other speakers are not using Esperanto properly? What is your opinion?

Thanks

One difference between English speakers and others can be that for most learners of Esperanto, this lernu!-site is merely a first stage. When they have learned more they go to other fora. English speakers on the other hand tend to stay even after they have become skilled. Therefore you find a relatively high concentration of good Esperanto writers among them. (Perhaps the many vivid discussions going on on the English forum pages keep them from leaving.)
But not all English speakers are easy for me to understand. I sometimes test a text by the "tuj-vortaro". If I click every single word of the message, I often find a surprisingly high percentage of "neniuj trafoj". Fortunately, I know English enough to understand many such texts. That is when they are written in something like "English with o-suffixes and ackusative". (I can even understand "English with o-suffixes but without ackusativ). I deduct the form of the English word corresponding to the non-existant Esperanto word, and, if necessary, use the vortaro to translate it into Esperanto. I suppose a native English speaker often don't even notice that such texts are wrong.

I definitly understand most Russian participants of the lernu! fora better than most English speaking participants. My mother tongue is Swedish.
Edited

kaŝperanto:I think that this ranking is primarily caused by beginner mistakes (or experienced laziness ). I can almost always understand "bad" (incorrect) American Esperanto because I can see right through it to what they were trying to say, mostly when they try to word-for-word translate from English, use colloquialisms, or use incorrect words. "Bad" Chinese Esperanto is not at all transparent to me, as I don't know Chinese or what types of mistakes a Chinese person might make. As sudanglo said, this is a learning site and you will see a lot of posts from beginners.

...

One thing is for sure, though; when I read esperanto from a known spertulo I can almost always understand them regardless of where they are from. If you come across grammatical mistakes or nonsensical sentences, you are most likely not dealing with a spertulo.

One example of an error that is comprehensible to English speakers, but may be completely baffling to someone who doesn't know English, is using "havi" for "to have to." It might also be understood by speakers of Spanish, which has a similar construction ("tener" = "to have" = "havi"; "tener que" = "to have to" = "devi" ).

But when I read the Esperanto from people who've been at it for years, I can always understand it (unless it is on some fancy scientific or mathematical topic that I wouldn't understand even in English!). For example, my lingvohelpanto for "Kio Okazas?" is Swedish, and doesn't seem to know English, but we have no difficulty communicating in Esperanto. In fact, I intentionally chose one that didn't have English listed, so there would be no temptation to crocodile .

Here an example from an English speaking forum member, whose Esperanto is very good, but who occasionally uses expressions I don't quite understand.

Iu:Estas tre baza scienco ligi la procento de CO2 en la atmosfero al la hejtado de la tuta tero. Ne disputeblas iel, kaj vi estas blindulo aŭ stultulo ne vidi tion.

The first bold passage, translates for me to "It is very basic science". I don't know whether this is a fixed expression in English, but I am not sure what it means. Does it mean "It can be proven by very basic scientific studies" or "A basic aspect of science is" or something else? I don't quite understand this expression and couldn't translate it e.g. to German or Spanish.

The second bold passage is even stranger, because -in my non-English eyes- I have an infinitive dangling around at the end of the sentence with no obvious relation to the rest. From pure semantics (between "stultulo" and "ne vidi tion" ) I guess that it means "vi estas stultulo, cxar vi ne vidas tion" or "vi estas stultulo ne vidanta tion" or something like that? Also does the "vidi" really mean "vidi" (an optical perception) or is it an English "to see" which means "kompreni".

These are two examples where for me, as a non-anglophone, an English native speaker's Esperanto is a bit difficult to understand.

Are these two sentences completely clear and unambiguous and easily understandable to you, dear English speakers?

For me it is much more difficult to parse the comments posted in English by non-English speakers. I usually get the general drift but the secondary, so-called between the lines, meanings elude me. And many times they write things that they cannot possibly really intend - though sometimes I wonder. Furthermore, due to their L1 pragmatics, they often come off as rather rude and curt. I really think that they should try to express themselves in Esperanto instead since it would be less irritating for all to try to discombobulate their verbal fangles and foppishness. Furthermoe,it would be more in tune with the idea of lernu and Esperanto.

Sorry for that. But what are we supposed to do if most threads are started in the English forum? I would prefer to discuss this in Esperanto, too, but we are stuck here with English.

----
(And if I come off as rude or curt, please believe me that this isn't my intention.)

nornen:Here an example from an English speaking forum member, whose Esperanto is very good, but who occasionally uses expressions I don't quite understand.

Iu:Estas tre baza scienco ligi la procento de CO2 en la atmosfero al la hejtado de la tuta tero. Ne disputeblas iel, kaj vi estas blindulo aŭ stultulo ne vidi tion.

The first bold passage, translates for me to "It is very basic science". I don't know whether this is a fixed expression in English, but I am not sure what it means. Does it mean "It can be proven by very basic scientific studies" or "A basic aspect of science is" or something else? I don't quite understand this expression and couldn't translate it e.g. to German or Spanish.

The second bold passage is even stranger, because -in my non-English eyes- I have an infinitive dangling around at the end of the sentence with no obvious relation to the rest. From pure semantics (between "stultulo" and "ne vidi tion" ) I guess that it means "vi estas stultulo, cxar vi ne vidas tion" or "vi estas stultulo ne vidanta tion" or something like that? Also does the "vidi" really mean "vidi" (an optical perception) or is it an English "to see" which means "kompreni".

As one with rather intimate knowledge of the quoted phrase, I'll attempt to address your post. I am flattered that you think my Esperanto is very good, and I'm always open to the type of constructive criticism you made here.

I would translate it as, "It is very basic science to link the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere to the heating of the whole earth. It is not disputable in any way, and you are blind or a fool to not see that."

I would never have guessed there was any ambiguity in "Estas tre baza scienco", but your guess of "It can be proven by very basic scientific studies" is closest to what I meant. I would liken my expression to "It is common sense", but with the added force that it is supported by simple/fundamental scientific evidence.

I definitely agree that my last sentence was heavily influenced by thinking in English. I would say "...kaj vi estas blindulo aux stultulo se vi ne komprenas tion." Although "blindulo" doesn't quite make as much sense when not used with "vidi", but that is an English thing for sure. I might say "malklerulo" or "naivulo" instead of "blindulo". I definitely feel a lack of preposition/conjunction there as well. I recall feeling somewhat unsure when I wrote this, so now I know to be extra cautious in such a situation. Normally I am careful to avoid non-neutral usage, but this discussion was getting quite heated (pardon the pun) and I was somewhat frustrated at the time.

My understanding of the finer aspects of English grammar is almost entirely natural, so I can't say anything about the correctness of the last sentence in English. It doesn't feel wrong to me.

Don't be afraid to point these irregularities out in the future. I'm always looking to improve.

nornen:Sorry for that. But what are we supposed to do if most threads are started in the English forum? I would prefer to discuss this in Esperanto, too, but we are stuck here with English.

----
(And if I come off as rude or curt, please believe me that this isn't my intention.)

I don't think that robb was referring to your post, nornen. Your English is quite good, and the only thing that could be seen as rude to me is your usage of "dear English speakers". Often times that phrase would be sarcastically used with the intent to offend the other group/person.

But this is a general problem that I definitely agree with, and as a non-native speaker you certainly have made and will continue to make these types of blunders. The same reasons you might not understand a phrase I use can cause me to not understand a phrase you use as you intended it to be understood. I had a mechanical engineering professor a few years ago who was a nonnative but fluent English speaker, and on the first day of class he explained that if he ever seems mad or angry it is just his accent, and he is most likely just excited. In his case it was his inflection/pronunciation, but in more cases non-natives use phrases that seem very rude. A native might know how to verbally emphasize the right words to make a phrase not sound offensive, but foreigners have no such training (I could read aloud your sentence with "dear" to make it sound either authentic or highly sarcastic and mocking).

Also, I just noticed that I also missed an accusative in the sentence you quoted; it should be "ligi la procenton". I was full of mistakes that day.

If you want to discuss an English thread in Esperanto, make a sister thread in Vidpunktoj or elsewhere. We could use a distraction from the exhausting Ukraine debate that has been going on for the last several months.

Uff, yeah! That discussion about Eastern Europe when you are on the outside looking in makes you feel totally alienated - it has become such a "good cop, bad cop" thing and there are no free donuts to be had let alone dunked.

Estas tre baza scienco ligi la procento de CO2 en la atmosfero al la hejtado de la tuta tero. Ne disputeblas iel, kaj vi estas blindulo aŭ stultulo ne vidi tion.

It is very basic science .... I am not sure what that means.

Baza ne ŝajnas al mi misuzata - baza kurso; la bazajn principojn de la parolarto; Ĉi tie estos nur mallonga kaj tre baza klarigo (Bertilo).

Do ligi X kun Y estas tre baza scienco - ne apogiĝas sur arkanaj principoj de la scienco.

Also does the "vidi" really mean "vidi" (an optical perception) or is it an English "to see" which means "kompreni"

Nornen, both in French and in English the verb corresponding to vidi is used figuratively to mean ekkompreni. And, surprise, surprise, definition 6 in NPIV for vidi is percepti per la menso, kompreni, konstati.

Agreed though, that a 'por' needs to be inserted in front of 'ne vidi' - por ne vidi.