Esperanto letters closely follow the International Phonetic Alphabet - that is why is pronounced like /j/. The IPA appeared about the same time as Esperanto.
Everybody accepts IPA and I never read any wise-a:: suggesting a revision of it. Sometimes American textbooks for teachers use a for a localized phonetic spelling system - but that is a small minority of readers compared with the whole world.

robbkvasnak:Esperanto letters closely follow the International Phonetic Alphabet - that is why is pronounced like /j/. The IPA appeared about the same time as Esperanto.
Everybody accepts IPA and I never read any wise-a:: suggesting a revision of it. Sometimes American textbooks for teachers use a for a localized phonetic spelling system - but that is a small minority of readers compared with the whole world.

Actually those books are using the American Phonetic Alphabet, explaining why familiarity with y is assumed.

Zamenhof himself did not destroy the documents of early Esperanto; his father did, when he went off to school. There were some other documents with an old form of Esperanto, but those were destroyed by the Nazis. However, we have transcriptions of some of those documents, that were copied by Esperantists who saw the originals in a museum, before the war.

The book "Lingvo kaj vivo" by Gaston Waringhien has the best descripton of this "praesperanto" that I have seen. I believe it would be possible to take the contents of his book and make your own "praesperanto" of a similar flavor (though it would certainly not be the same as what Zamenhof intended, it would be recognizable as what it is, to someone familiar with praesperanto)

Wikipedia has someone's reconstruction of some of the elements of praesperanto, for anyone who wants an easy online reference to some of this information: https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pra-Esperanto

Tangi:

Vestitor:No, they're not a hindrance ... Anywhere else it would be laughed into obscurity.

National language is a goal, as it is an integral part of the national culture.
Esperanto, on contrary, is a tool, a tool for global understanding. If a tool is inefficient or inconvenient, it is replaced.

So I take it thee is NOT a raumist......

Esperanto, on contrary, is a tool, a tool for global understanding. If a tool is inefficient or inconvenient, it is replaced.

I don't think anyone informed will say Esperanto is - other things being equal - inferior as a global interlanguage to the frightful English. Esperanto is still easier to acquire fluency in than any major language of the world - even if it has defects.

Regardless of your criticisms, millions of people have used Esperanto for over a century successfully to communicate, and they will continue to do so. This is what I don't get about Esperanto's critics - they attack some abstract model in a vacuum and fail to address the functionality Esperanto has actually achieved in the real world.

In any case, I dislike the utilitarian idea of "Esperanto is just a tool". I am content to simply appreciate Esperanto, its culture, and its speakers, just the way they are, - just like I appreciate Italian. If Esperanto gains mass popularity - all the better! There will be more speakers to enrich the language and the community.

But to the charge of: "Esperanto is not suited for international communication because X," my first reaction, even if I disagree with reason X, is - "So what? I don't care."

Back to the original question:

Just my two cents.

Same idea with less changes:

Fajril

Surra grąda voj marśis soldat: “Un, du! un, du!” Li havis tornistron surra dors kaj sabron ćel fląk, ćar li estis ątaw ę milit, sed nun li iris hejmę. Ję li rękontis surra voj maljuną sorćistinon; śi estis teruraw malbela, śja malsupra lip pędis dźissa brust. śi diris: “Boną tagon, soldat! Kją belą sabron kaj grądą tornistron ci havas! Ci estas vera soldat! Nun ci ricevos tjom multaw da mon, kjom ci volas havi.”
“Mi dąkas, maljuna sorćistin!” diris la soldat.
“Ću ci vidas tje la grądą arbon?” diris la sorćistin, montrątaw arbon, kju trovidźis apud ili. “Dźi estas internaw tutaw malplena. Se ci grimpos sur dźi dźissa supor, ci ekvidos truhon, tra kju ci povos ęrąpi kaj mallevidźi malsuprę dźis la profunt del arp. Mi alligos al ci śnuron alla korp, por ke mi povu returne tiri cin suprę, kją ci min vokos.”

Vestitor:

Tempodivalse:
I don't see anything wrong with being interested in those things.

Honestly, I don't worry too much about what non-Esperantists think of Esperanto. If they're so small-minded that they jump to some silly judgment in the way you suggest, then that's their problem.

Sure it is. Then English can continue being the lingua franca while the derided Esperanto remains in a position of semi-mockery.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the things I listed, but they are really a hindrance when people think of them as 'the sort of thing Esperantists are associated with'.

I think Esperantists should be concerned about how non-Esperantists think of Esperanto since it tends to be mostly misconceptions and then the question needs to be asked as to why.

I shall immediately change myself so the language is more marketable. Languages certainly aren't flexible.

rikforto:

Vestitor:

Tempodivalse:
I don't see anything wrong with being interested in those things.

Honestly, I don't worry too much about what non-Esperantists think of Esperanto. If they're so small-minded that they jump to some silly judgment in the way you suggest, then that's their problem.

Sure it is. Then English can continue being the lingua franca while the derided Esperanto remains in a position of semi-mockery.

...etc.

I shall immediately change myself so the language is more marketable. Languages certainly aren't flexible.

Marvellous irony, which unfortunately fails to address the actual point. No-one has to change themselves, what people like or do is one thing, Esperanto is another separate thing because it is shared. Let's say, e.g. that we all use the internet and some use it for selling toiletries and other people use it for playing multiplayer games with wizards in them. The internet is merely the medium, anyone uses it for anything. Esperanto could be better seen in that way, but it isn't and some of that is due to some of the quackery associated with it - real or perceived.

I wish people would think through the bloody question before answering.

No-one has to change themselves, what people like or do is one thing, Esperanto is another separate thing because it is shared.

The decided impression I got from your previous messages was that, essentially, Esperantists should create a facade of "normalcy" for people sceptical of Esperanto to see. To me, this involves a level of self-censorship - e.g., someone wants to translate some wizard-and-witch computer game into Esperanto, but thinks "ooh, this could look bad, so I won't do it, or I'll do it in secret".

I think it's better to just be honest, with ourselves and with others. Use the language for whatever purposes interest you. And if Esperantists are strange, so be it. Even if they could successfully put up a Potemkin's village of "average-Bob-and-Joe normalcy", anyone who investigates a little deeper will still find out all of Esperantujo's quirks.