Does the 10,000 hour rule apply to speaking Esperanto? I am not asking how long it takes to learn Esperanto.

This is the question: To become a world class Esperanto speaker, does it take 10 thousand hours?

https://youtu.be/WBob67xwuGk

What do you think?

It depends on your goals and expectations. If you want to be able to 'hold a conversation' in Esperanto - you def don't need 10,000 of practice (defined as 'using the language' ) but if you want Esperanto to be as good as your mother tongue, then you'll need to find a place where you can use it 24/7 - which is equal to 168 hours or over 59 weeks to reach 10,000 hours or five years. But I don't think that you'll need 5 years to becoome truely fluent in Esperanto - unless you are goofing off most of that time in another language. If you are goofing off in Esperanto, then you're fine.

Alkanadi:Does the 10,000 hour rule apply to speaking Esperanto?

https://youtu.be/WBob67xwuGk

What do you think?

Your question is a bit complicated to answer. The features that make Esperanto much less complicated, and thus far less time consuming to acquire, are a) its greatly simplified grammatical system, b) its total absence of irregularity, and c) a sound system that is delightfully easy to produce. These factors alone make Esperanto attractive because they greatly reduce THAT PARTICULAR PART of the learning curve (though I hasten to add that there is still a learning curve--particularly in terms of the grammar--a factor that many promoters of Esperanto downplay to an exaggerated degree).

Here's the problem (and the reason why many Esperantists remain "eternal beginners" )--there is much more involved in learning a language than learning the grammar and how to pronounce the words. Learning grammar is not at all the same as developing fluency, and producing grammatically correct utterances that sound right does not equate understanding what others say to you. There just doesn't seem to be a shortcut for developing both fluency and comprehension skills. Even for reading and writing purposes, the language simply has to be used and experienced in order for those skills to be developed, no matter how transparent the grammar seems.

Another factor that is both a blessing and curse is that there is no standard, customary way to express many ordinary concepts, which means that different Esperanto writers and speakers can say the same things in several different ways, all of which will be grammatically fine and understandable--or at least decipherable (I.E. you can figure out what they meant). This is definite blessing in terms of allowing the expression of nuances and finer shades of meaning. But it almost leaves the newbie Esperantists with far too many choices and far too few absolutes in terms of locking onto ordinary ways to express thoughts (after all, what's ordinary?). This can hinder the development of fluency as well as the automatic, reflexive "go-to" expressions that we learn in national languages to navegate common situations have to be encoded in a way that makes sense, then deciphered on the other end, as opposed to simply shared, practiced, and repeated.

So all of that to say this--Yes, I believe that developing fluency is going to require the same language-use experiences as would be expected with any other languages, but the difference is that you can much more quickly front-load those experiences with a well-developed understanding of the grammar, so you can get to that stage of productive use where those skills will be built much more quickly and easily.

robbkvasnak:It depends on your goals and expectations

The 10 thousand hour rule says that if you spend 5 thousand hours on something, you will be good enough to teach it. If you spend 8 thousand hours on something then you will be awesome. You will be like a role model. If you spend 10 thousand hours on something then you will be world class.

Does this apply to Esperanto? Did the people, who are world class Esperanto speakers, spend 10 thousand hours to reach that level?

Polaris:Your question is a bit complicated to answer.

I didn't explain very well. I am not asking how long it takes to learn Esperanto.

To become a world class Esperanto speaker does it take 10 thousand hours?

For example, how long did it take Dr Benson, Claude Prion, William Mann, and others, to reach this level of fluency?

Alkanadi:To become a world class Esperanto speaker does it take 10 thousand hours? For example, how long did it take Dr Benson, Claude Piron, William Mann..?

There is no one right answer to this question, because people start with different backgrounds and aptitudes for languages. My guess is that an enthusiastic young person, particularly with a background in European languages at school, might well manage it within a year, whereas an older person without a background in European languages might take several years to reach reasonable fluency, but not necessarily world-class.

If Esperanto is considered easier to learn than other languages, then the assumption is that it would take less time. 10,000 hours is just over a year, and in my opinion is not really much time to learn anything to "world class" level. Mozart was a child prodigy and considered that it took him ten years to become an expert at what he did.

Ten years (rather than 10,000 hours) seems to be a more realistic projection for attaining real expertise in anything; with adjustments for gifts and skill differences, learning capacity and circumstances.

By the way. 10,000 hours? What is this business of measuring such a large number in hours?

Just for comparison, my nephew is nearly two. There is no way I'd describe him as roughly 17,000 hours old.

Alkanadi:Does the 10,000 hour rule apply to speaking Esperanto?

No, but that's because it doesn't apply to anything. The "10,000 hour rule" is complete nonsense.

In any case, as others have mentioned the amount of time required to reach "world class" (whatever that means) proficiency in Esperanto depends a lot on factors which are unique to each person, so IMO it's pointless trying to put a number on "what it takes".

Roch:Well, if you take it as a very demanding hobby and spend 15 hours a week at it,

15 x 52 weeks =780 hrs/year

10000 / 780 = 12 years and 10 months

How about 2.5 hours everyday for 10 years. 1 hour a day would take more than 20 years.

I would be shocked if someone still sucks after that much time. Results will very of course. For example, the person should be engaged and interested in the subject.

If you look at the link posted by TommJames you'll see the book Focus. The point in this book is about concentrated effort and use of practise time to improve, rather than rote practise re-doing any errors. The point is not necessarily how much time (though this plays some part), but the quality of the work in the time used for practice.

One of the reasons you progress with a teacher is because they save you time by pruning out errors for you before they become second-nature. They also direct your learning to what you need to know to get a solid foundation, without veering off into distractions or cul-de-sacs.

This is also why short intense practice and study for learning is recommended rather than hours of study where you get fatigued and distracted and thus forget things.