At a local Polyglot Meetup, members introduced themselves to the group in English (the local language) and said a few sentences about their languages and history. This exchange breaks my heart and reminds me why I am learning Esperanto:

Korean: [a few sentences about her background + general expression of desire to speak better English.]
American: "Your English is great. We were all able to understand you and you expressed what you wanted to say."
Korean: "There was more I wanted to say, but I don't have the English for it."

I want to be on equal footing with the native Korean speaker. I want to hear her say confidently everything she has to say. I hope Esperanto is a way to make that possible.

---

Ĉe kunveno de multparolantoj, kunvenanoj mem prezentis per anglo (la loka lingvo). Ĉiu diris kelkajn frazojn pri ilia lingvojn kaj ilia viv-historio. Ĉi tiu interparoladeto malĝojiĝa min. Ĝi min memorigi kial mi studas Esperanton.

La koreanino: [Ŝi diris kelkajn frazojn pri ŝia vivo, kaj ŝi pridiris ŝian deziron pli bone paroli anglo.]
La usonaniĉo: "Vi bone diris anglon."
La koreanino: "Estis pli da mi volas diri, sed mi ne scias la anglon."

Ĉi tiu estas tial ke mi studas Esperanton.

(Mi pardonpetas por mia tre malbona Eperanta skribaĵo.)

J_S:I want to be on equal footing with the native Korean speaker. [...] I hope Esperanto is a way to make that possible.

I am sorry for what I am about to say.

While talking Esperanto, an English speaker (even a monoglot) and a Korean speaker who doesn't know English (or another European language) will never be on equal footing.

Just imagine that your Korean friend says to you: "Tiu organizacio dependas de internacia mono."
You don't speak Korean.
You haven't heard in your life the Esperanto roots organizaci/, depend/, internaci/ and mon/. Nevertheless, you can easily hazard an educated guess what this statement is about.

Now imagine it is you who says this to your Korean friend.
He doesn't speak Korean.
He has no chance at all to make an educated guess about the meaning of what he just heard.

And it is not only the lexicon; also the grammar is indo-european and therefore it will come easy and natural to you, but not that easy and natural to your Korean friend.

nornen:While talking Esperanto, an English speaker (even a monoglot) and a Korean speaker who doesn't know English (or another European language) will never be on equal footing.

Esperanto lexicon is heavily based on Indo-European languages, and in particular Romance and Germanic languages. No contest.

But given that this language family has a significant, if not majority, presence on all inhabited continents, I'd say you could do a lot worse.

An a priori lexicon, similar to Volapük's, would definitely level the playing field, but it would make it equally difficult for everyone instead of very easy for some and fairly difficult for others. Esperanto's lexicon is going to be, on average, much easier.

As to J_S' Korean acquaintance, she will not find Esperanto as easy as (say) a Frenchman would. This is obvious. However, EO will be almost certainly easier for her, probably far easier, than any other "Western" language. Surely that counts for something?

I'm willing to accept that Esperanto is going to be easier for some people and more difficult for others. Unfair? Sure. Esperanto is in many ways just like any other (living) language - "warts and all".

But an objectively "easy language" seems as impossible as answering the question: "What's the easiest language?" The answer, of course, will depend on each individual's language background and learning capabilities.

Incidentally, I have heard more Western Esperantists complain that Esperanto is hard for East Asians, than I have heard actual complaints from East Asians...

P.S. Esperanto grammar and word-building are not exclusively IE - there are uncanny resemblances to Turkic and even Asiatic languages, even though I'm sure this was entirely unintended by Zamenhof. I suggest the monologue of Claude Piron: "The Question of How to Classify Esperanto", available here.

Tempodivalse:Incidentally, I have heard more Western Esperantists complain that Esperanto is hard for East Asians, than I have heard actual complaints from East Asians...

绿网:Por ĉinoj, la rilata subpropozicio en esperanto kaj aliaj eŭropaj lingvoj estas malfacilaj. Ĉar en la ĉinaj lingvoj ne estas rilata subpropozicio [...]

How many English, German or Spanish speakers would deem relative clauses difficult. No matter how complex they get, for English speakers they are unambiguous and easy to understand.

nornen:
While talking Esperanto, an English speaker (even a monoglot) and a Korean speaker who doesn't know English (or another European language) will never be on equal footing...
And it is not only the lexicon; also the grammar is indo-european and therefore it will come easy and natural to you, but not that easy and natural to your Korean friend.

While the barriers for those who speak Asian languages may be higher than for those who speak Indo-European languages, the barriers for Asian language speakers to learn Esperanto are lower than for them learning the other Indo-European languages which vie for lingua franca.

Here is a perspective directly from a Korean speaker that you might find interesting.

jaldrich:

nornen:
While talking Esperanto, an English speaker (even a monoglot) and a Korean speaker who doesn't know English (or another European language) will never be on equal footing...
And it is not only the lexicon; also the grammar is indo-european and therefore it will come easy and natural to you, but not that easy and natural to your Korean friend.

While the barriers for those who speak Asian languages may be higher than for those who speak Indo-European languages, the barriers for Asian language speakers to learn Esperanto are lower than for them learning the other Indo-European languages which vie for lingua franca.

Here is a perspective directly from a Korean speaker that you might find interesting.

Thank you so much for this link.

This part made me really think:

Se Zamenhof prenus vortojn de aziaj lingvoj, ĉu vi, eŭropanoj volas lerni ĝin?

Would we have as many English speaking lernu members, if let's say Esperanto had tones? Or no relative pronouns? Or no tense, only aspect? Or no opposition between /g/ and /k/, but between /k/ and /kh/? Or if "farus" meant at the same time "would do" and "would have done"? Still 100% regular and logic, but not 100% european? I really wonder how it would be.

And it is not only the lexicon; also the grammar is indo-european and therefore it will come easy and natural to you, but not that easy and natural to your Korean friend.

I have "coached" many monoglot English speakers to Esperanto grammar, and I would hardly say it is natural or intuitive to many (most!) of them.

There's a range of important facets which befuddle monoglot anglophones, such as: difference between -u and -o correlatives; predicatives; participles; proper introduction of subclauses, among others. The same goes for many Romance speakers, whom I observe making similar mistakes.

Grammar, at least, is not difficult if you are able to conceptualise abstractions - regardless of your actual language background. This is due to the ability to generalise from (almost) any perceived pattern.

For example, the accusative case (which Westerners fear) is dead easy if you can properly grasp the notion of a direct object. Relative clauses are a bit more complex, but conceptually there is nothing baffling about them. [1]

Or if "farus" meant at the same time "would do" and "would have done"?

This actually is the case. The conditional mood -us does not itself indicate time. Mi farus tion, se mi povus - we don't know if this is referring to the past or future.

Would we have as many English speaking lernu members, if let's say Esperanto had tones?

Probably not. On the other hand, one might argue that, other things being equal, tones make a language objectively more difficult, and hence they would be inappropriate anyway for a language designed to be easy - like having masses of irregular conjugations, declensions, etc.

----

[1] I would say the single "objectively" most complex part of Esperanto is the definite article. That is the one thing I regret Zamenhof included - it is utterly superfluous, as Slavic languages demonstrate. It would be interesting to discuss whether omitting "la" entirely would theoretically violate the Fundamento.

Tempodivalse:

Or if "farus" meant at the same time "would do" and "would have done"?

This actually is the case. The conditional mood -us does not itself indicate time. Mi farus tion, se mi povus - we don't know if this is referring to the past or future.

Ssshhhh, don't say this too loud on this forum. You might wake HIM.

Tempodivalse:On the other hand, one might argue that, other things being equal, tones make a language more difficult, and hence they would be inappropriate anyway for a language designed to be easy.

Adding a distinction between voiced and voiceless sounds also adds difficulty, but we have this in Esperanto. Why dont we have tenuis, aspirated and voiced instead? Or leave it out copmletely (like around where I live)? It is not about easier or more difficult; it is about what one is accustomed to.

Tempodivalse:[1] I would say the single "objectively" most complex part of Esperanto is the definite article.

I completely agree.

The excellent post jaldrich linked to, raised another question for me:

How many Esperantists are there who haven't studied any European language except Esperanto (or their native tongue is European)?

It is not about easier or more difficult; it is about what one is accustomed to.

I distinguish between parts of a language which are subjectively hard, given a preexisting background (e.g. phonemes and lexicon), and objectively hard, as a consequence of: conceptual complication (e.g. Russian verbs of motion), necessity for rote memorisation (e.g. Navaho conjugation), or distinctions that don't add to expressive power (e.g. feminine and masculine nouns, probably tones).

There isn't much you can do with the subjectively difficult parts - it's "luck of the draw" for whomever finds it easy or difficult. You can try a minimalist approach á la Toki Pona, but that seriously limits your vocabulary choices, ability to import words, etc.

Esperanto has many objectively difficult parts, but here you have to balance ease and non-complexity vs. ability for clean self-expression. Try as you might, you are not going to closely translate a technical document or a deep poem into Toki Pona. I think Esperanto manages a reasonable balance here. Not the best, but "in the ballpark".

Tempodivalse:Not the best, but "in the ballpark".

You said it. This is the important thing: not the best, but good enough. However it is still sad, that Europeans (once again) are given a head start. The international language favours some and disfavours others.

About -us: I agree 100% with you, that -us and -u are tenseless.