Hello everyone! I have recently read a lot of websites that tell only good things about Esperanto. In most cases I have to agree: agglunation, lots of useful prefixes and suffixes and everything is regular. There've been a lot of comparing esperanto with hungarian and chinese. There is only one thing I can't understand: the romance vocabulary. Zamenhoff created that language for everyone to spend the similar amount of time learning this. I would say, that it's completly wrong that chinese people will find it easier to learn. If it's grammar is so simple (because it really is) then why would it be for french or italian pearson hard to learn? An adult will do that in a week, no longer. What about the chinese, hungarian, slavic, greek, indonesian and many many others? Because it's nearly impossible to learn ALL the vocabulary. But... the vocabulary is romance (particulary germanic).
Zamenhoff knew polish, russian, german, english, italian, french, latin and ancient greek. He knew those languages very well. But he decided to not put the vocabulary from three of these langs. I know that the languages such as chinese, japanese, indonesian, hindi, swahili and many many others were not popular then, but I'm sure, that he could easily find the dictionaries in libraries. He DID NOT do that. Was it so "international"? I don't think so. That could be only the vocabulary, nothing more, but he said "NO, for me there are only two civilizated groups of peole - these using romance and germanic langs. Other are well... exotic... let's talk about something else".
I don't want to offend anyone: I just want to start a discussion and hear someone others' opinions. That's all. I want to end and I'm waiting for your comments, because I am really interested what do you think about this. Good day!

The roots of esperanto were not choosed to please to some people, but because of their frequency in the languages spoken at that time.

These languages were mostly european, because the people interested in international communication were then from that continent.

It's about roots, not words. For instance, the word for "house" is "domo", but the root can be found in english words like "domestic". A lot of technical european words have been borrowed by non-european languages, due to progress of science.

I suppose that Zamenhof in 2025 would present a different Esperanto project, with an international vocabulary according with nowadays standards.

First Zamenhoff was an eye-doctor, not a linguist, thus he quite likely was not aware of many language related things, for instance that Hindi was/is(?) the most spoken Indo-European (IE) language. I greatly doubt that there were so many dictionaries of non-IE languages available at Warsaw at that time. He was most definitely a product of his time, and had a very vague understanding things outside central Europe. Note however, that it is unjust to measure the past by today's measures.

When it comes to your claim about IE centric vocabulary, you are absolutely right. So no wonder that there are schools like bonalingvismo, which supports the idea of using the already existing roots to create new words instead of importing new roots. There also many who think that if a new root is needed, it preferably should come from an non-IE language.

You might be interested in the article Ĉu la 15-a regulo forvelkas? in Libera folio.