Vestitor:

Armand6:

Tempodivalse:
Do you have evidence for this claim - namely, that Esperanto takes 5,5 years to learn for someone who learns English in 6?

Those are example numbers, you can give us some actual statistics if it is available.

That onus is on you chief; you're the one who made the claim!

I do notice that his "example" numbers support his claim really well, though.

bartlett22183:
Please don't feed the troll. There is someone who posts on the (old-fashioned) internet newsgroup soc.culture.esperanto under one name, and all he does is be disagreeable and contradictory. Whether a frequent poster here is the same individual under a different name I cannot say, but he seems to be using the same tactic: just be contradictory to nearly everything anyone says about Esperanto. If such individuals are totally ignored, eventually they may just go away.

For the record, I am 99.5% certain that Armand6 is the same user as Elhana and Tangi - two rather exasperating and none too constructive accounts which are now deleted (either by an admin, or by the user himself).

+1 on ignoring such users - though it's rather difficult, because I dislike it when people go about misinforming, and I feel compelled to respond and clarify.

Tempodivalse:I dislike it when people go about misinforming

Me too, I just cannnot stand aside when people come with absurd statements like "you can learn Esperanto in 2 weeks" and "you cannot learn English in 4 years", "English is a difficult language", etc.

Vestitor:That onus is on you chief

The onus is foremost on those who post propaganda everywhere, claiming that you can learn Esperanto in 150h, or that Esperanto is 10 times easier than a language X. There is always no proof of any kind given, and no research conducted. You want to contradict me, come with facts, not advertisement.

Armand6:

Vestitor:That onus is on you chief

The onus is foremost on those who post propaganda everywhere, claiming that you can learn Esperanto in 150h, or that Esperanto is 10 times easier than a language X. There is always no proof of any kind given, and no research conducted. You want to contradict me, come with facts, not advertisement.

I don't think most people on this forum are making those kinds of exaggerated claims - I certainly don't. You might want to address criticisms of such claims (which I think are entirely appropriate) directly to those who make them, rather than implying that everybody is making them. I think many, if not most, Esperantists have moved on from the overblown "Only 15 rules!!!" bragging of the early 20th century.

My position is merely that, on average, it would be easier to acquire a certain level of proficiency (something vaguely quantifiable like the European standards of B2, C1) in Esperanto than in another language. How much easier? That will depend vastly on the individual learner. In some cases the difference will be miniscule, in others quite large.

But I don't think it's controversial to say that a language with few exceptions is easier to learn than a language with more exceptions, other things being equal. Ever tried to learn Navajo - or other languages with few or no regular verbs? Are you really going to say the Esperanto verb is really no more difficult than the Navajo (or even the Russian)?

Armand6:

Vestitor:That onus is on you chief

The onus is foremost on those who post propaganda everywhere, claiming that you can learn Esperanto in 150h, or that Esperanto is 10 times easier than a language X. There is always no proof of any kind given, and no research conducted. You want to contradict me, come with facts, not advertisement.

That's not coming from me. I'd expect about 1-2 years worth of Esperanto to get good. On the matter of English being not as easy as foreign speakers like to claim, I stand by that wholeheartedly. I'm a better judge than you about that; I'm a native speaker with a full understanding of the language, you're clearly not.

In the Netherlands, where I live, and where the average person is a lot better at English than most other European countries, there is still a massive shortfall in grammar, vocabulary and listening skills, and this is English taught from a very early age and a culture saturated in English cultural imports. Writing skills are middling to poor. So what is it like Elsewhere? I can tell you about experience of that too, but I don't see why I should fill in the gaps you have acquired through walking about with your eyes and ears shut.

Tempodivalse:Are you really going to say the Esperanto verb is really no more difficult than the Navajo (or even the Russian)?

I don't understand you.

Vestitor:In the Netherlands, ... there is still a massive shortfall in grammar, vocabulary and listening skills, and this is English taught from a very early age and a culture saturated in English cultural imports.

Well, I do agree it is unreasonable to expect a high level of foreign language proficiency from a man in the street, but please answer honestly: do other foreign languages the Netherlanders learn yield better results?

Armand6:

Vestitor:In the Netherlands, ... there is still a massive shortfall in grammar, vocabulary and listening skills, and this is English taught from a very early age and a culture saturated in English cultural imports.

Well, I do agree it is unreasonable to expect a high level of foreign language proficiency from a man in the street, but please answer honestly: do other foreign languages the Netherlanders learn yield better results?

The honest answer is no, for the general population. There is a myth in the Netherlands that everyone is multi-lingual, but German proficiency has been declining year upon year. French proficiency is becoming negligible.