Alkanadi:

Bemused:

Alkanadi:

erinja:Perhaps Zamenhof would have done well to make the pronouns so they didn't all end with the same vowel sound...

Or, he could of made them with two syllables.

For example he could have made:

Different vowel endings;
- me (I/me), vu (you), ni (we)

Two syllable words;
- ilu (he), elu (she), olu (it)

Yah, or he could have done this:
Mimi, Lili, Vivi, Nini, ect...

Then if people are still having a hard time hearing:
Mimimi, Lilili, Vivivi, Ninini, ect...

Or to be super extra clear, he could have added sign language when speaking, and special symbols for writing:
!Mi, @Li, #Vi, $Ni, ect...

Sorry you missed the joke.
I didn't come up with the examples I gave.
Nor was the idea of making the pronouns more easily distinguishable original.
A little over a hundred years ago a commitee suggested these changes (among others) to Esperanto.
Of course they were told to bugger off and stop trying to mess with something that was already "good enough".
Result: Ido

Ido was just an attempt to make Esperanto sound more like French, Italian or Spanish. It was a purely Latin-centric idea. I use it as a dialect when writing Esperanto fiction. Like I am writing a story now and there is a waitress in a cafe who just came from the countryside to the city. I have her speak Ido. In this context it is more like unpolished Esperanto and is strange enough but comprehensible enough for the reader to understand.
My first experience with a large number of people from different language backgrounds was in Luxemburg. When I entered the kongresejo I at first thought a lot of people were speaking their own language - from the accent. But then after listening a few minutes I understood what they were saying. It was a very mojosa momento for me, really. It sort of blew my mind.

sudanglo:Of course, there is little redundancy in the contrast between mi estas and ni estas, nor between mi estas and mi estis.

But how often would a sentence or utterance consists of just such short phrases where it isn't self evident from context who or what time is being referred to?

Reduncy can be introduced by the rest of the sentence.

{trim}

Yes, there is a legitimate matter of redundancy. Several years ago I downloaded a computer course for Esperanto, but with my elderly hearing I literally could not distinguish between 'mi estas' and 'ni estas' in speech. I could not, as well as other similar distinctions. Obviously in writing it was simple. I think that there is a genuine difference between spoken and written language forms, and we need to be aware of these. In the spoken forms of language, context may be crucially important. (Some phrases spoken in isolation may be literally unintelligible to some of us with old hearing.)

bartlett22183:Yes, there is a legitimate matter of redundancy. Several years ago I downloaded a computer course for Esperanto, but with my elderly hearing I literally could not distinguish between 'mi estas' and 'ni estas' in speech. I could not, as well as other similar distinctions. Obviously in writing it was simple. I think that there is a genuine difference between spoken and written language forms, and we need to be aware of these. In the spoken forms of language, context may be crucially important. (Some phrases spoken in isolation may be literally unintelligible to some of us with old hearing.)

Indeed. There have been some Duolingo hearing exercises that literally make no sense at all to me. I would imagine that in a spoken conversation, that I would have to ask for help now and then.

ludomastro:Indeed. There have been some Duolingo hearing exercises that literally make no sense at all to me. I would imagine that in a spoken conversation, that I would have to ask for help now and then.

Real life is easier than a duolingo exercise because you usually benefit from context. In real life, if someone is talking about her solo trip to Mexico, and she says "Mi iris lunde", you have no doubt that it is "mi" and not "ni" because this whole trip has been about herself. In a Duolingo exercise, you have no context to tell you whether "mi" or "ni" is more likely. My Esperanto is excellent and sometimes when my husband plays one of those Duolingo exercises for me, I am not sure.

ludomastro:Indeed. There have been some Duolingo hearing exercises that literally make no sense at all to me. I would imagine that in a spoken conversation, that I would have to ask for help now and then.

I used to replay the audio over and over again. It didn't sound like anything intelligible. They have either improved the audio since then, or I am now accustomed to understanding spoken Esperanto.

erinja:

ludomastro:Indeed. There have been some Duolingo hearing exercises that literally make no sense at all to me. I would imagine that in a spoken conversation, that I would have to ask for help now and then.

Real life is easier than a duolingo exercise because you usually benefit from context. In real life, if someone is talking about her solo trip to Mexico, and she says "Mi iris lunde", you have no doubt that it is "mi" and not "ni" because this whole trip has been about herself. In a Duolingo exercise, you have no context to tell you whether "mi" or "ni" is more likely. My Esperanto is excellent and sometimes when my husband plays one of those Duolingo exercises for me, I am not sure.

Good to know that it's not just me. Thanks.

Yes, we really have to distinguish between spoken and written forms of language. When I took my first foreign language course fifty-five years ago, the "oral aural method" was all the rage. Even that far back, as a young person, I could not distinguish some of the spoken phrases. However, the textbook, which included grammar and descriptions of the phrases in the International Phonetic Alphabet, well, that was another matter. I have listened to several online Esperanto presentations, and I can barely make them out. However, I estimate that I have an 80-85% or so understanding of written text even without a dictionary.

Relying on mostly or only listening or written matter for language learning only provides half the experience. Dozens of kids back in the bad old days armed with a French or Latin grammar can testify to this; as will people who can witter, but can't write their target language for toffee (which will always have an effect on the spoken language).

The 'mi/ni' thing Erinja mentioned at the start of the thread is one that tripped me up in listening (and still does now and again). It may be manageable from context in larger sentences, but in the short sentences for learning it is a hindrance. But this is just how it is. English is also riddled with inconsistencies and issues, but it is doing fine.

I don't think the cognitive scientists will design a 'perfect' constructed language. The tiresome technocrats need to step away for once and admit that some things can't be perfected; especially when it is a fluid thing that will be affected by all kinds of variables in the real world.

In any case, all living languages, and that includes Esperanto, evolve there own solutions in areas where there is a possibility of misunderstanding. They adapt to what is practical and leave unchanged what proves to be unproblematic.

The closeness of mi and ni, and estis and estas, hasn't yet proved to be a problem in practice.

Should the circumstances arise where the distinction becomes critical and the existing forms cause some difficulty it can be anticipated that a solution will spontaneously arise.

This might simply be an emphasis, such as shifting the accent on the syllables so that estas becomes estas, rather than estas, or saying ni (plural noun) to distinguish it from mi.

In English we say N for naughty and M for mother when spelling over the telephone, rather than inventing new letter names. And in aircraft traffic control we say 'niner' for nine to distinguish it from five, which recognizably preserves the original number name.

But usually, in Esperanto as in English, either the konteksto or the kunteksto will provide a clue to any misheard form.