robinast ,
you should understand that a conlang is not to replace natural languages but to serve as a helper in communicating.And it is supposed to be easy and quick to learn , so this way a great variety of words with almost the same sense is not only superfluous but pernicious.

Taciturn_:robinast ,
you should understand that a conlang is not to replace natural languages but to serve as a helper in communicating.And it is supposed to be easy and quick to learn , so this way a great variety of words with almost the same sense is not only superfluous but pernicious.

I do understand that Esperanto is not to replace natural languages! At the same time I think that a certain set of synonyms is essential for any language which wants to be fully functional (with original and translated literature f.e). I also think that not synonyms make learning languages difficult and slow - this is mainly due to complex and irregular grammar... So, I'm afraid I would not fully agree with you in that that synonyms are poison in a conlang's body. But if you mean that synonyms must not be created just for lust - I can only agree.
Amike,
Harri.

Ĉiuj miaj ĉevaloj estas en la ĉevalejo: ĉevalinoj, virĉevaloj, virĉevalidoj kaj ĉevalidinoj - eĉ plej kompatindaj ĉevalaĉoj.

My translation to avoid repeating :
Cxiuj miaj cxevaloj estas en la ejo:
geplenagxaj (bestoj) kaj geidoj - ecx la plej kompatindaj acxoj el ili.

But i don`t feel bad with reading the text full of the same roots at all.

The obvious reason why Esperanto should not have too many synonyms is because every one of them will have to be learnt by the whole world, so if there's a different way of saying it that's better.

Taciturn_:Ĉiuj miaj ĉevaloj estas en la ĉevalejo: ĉevalinoj, virĉevaloj, virĉevalidoj kaj ĉevalidinoj - eĉ plej kompatindaj ĉevalaĉoj.

My translation to avoid repeating :
Cxiuj miaj cxevaloj estas en la ejo:
geplenagxaj (bestoj) kaj geidoj - ecx la plej kompatindaj acxoj el ili.

But i don`t feel bad with reading the text full of the same roots at all.

Thanks! Your way to avoid stem repeating is interesting and it, of course, reduces the possible need for synonyms. And yes, sometimes the repeating stems are just what one needs - though in general this repeating should be avoided if possible.

Rogir:
The obvious reason why Esperanto should not have too many synonyms is because every one of them will have to be learnt by the whole world,

Yes, you are right- the Esperanto should not have too many synonyms (which does not mean that it necessarily shouldn't have them at all, right?) But I do not think that every single root (be they synonyms or not) is to be learned by every single speaker in the world. Do you know the every existing root in Esperanto or every possible synonym in your native language? Most likely not... but does this mean that those you do not know, are not necessary? Not at all I would say.

Besides, I am not trying to say that Esperanto has or has not any problems with repeating stems - I have no idea . My knowledge in Esperanto still is so miserable that I do not know enough even for forming my own opinion. So, I asked more experienced Esperantists about their opinions...
Amike,
Harri.