I must add, it's exactly because of the kind of attitude some people grow anti-Esperanto feelings. I expressed my thoughts in a respectful manner and I expect respect in return. But it's impossible to engage in a civil discussion, the second you doubt one of the Esperantist claim ("it's a regular language", "it's 10 times easier than another language", "it shouldn't be the IAL", etc), you're being labelled as a "miserable" person or a person who doesn't know anything about the language. I don't think I've attacked the intelligence or knowledge of one person here, so...?

djeepywta:I can't prove it, but to me both are a matter of common sense. On paper it isn't that bad, but it contributes greatly to the ugliness of the language when spoken.

"De gustibus non disputandum est" - In matters of taste, there can be no argument. Ugliness of a language is very much a matter of taste. I correct the Ana Pana course for English-speaking students; one of the questions asks the student which language(s) they believe are most beautiful. More than once, students have named languages that are among the ugliest (according to my taste). You can't objectively say that a language is ugly or not, any more than you can say "Spinach tastes good". Lots of people love spinach, and lots of people hate it. I don't believe it would be possible to construct a language that everyone would find attractive. Even languages commonly considered beautiful are not universally liked. One friend of mine thinks Italian sounds harsh and awful (and that Hebrew sounds soft and attractive!), another once told me that to her, people sound like they're choking on their spit when they speak French.

Irrelevant, IAL shouldn't have unusual letters, period.

This also depends on what you call unusual. Not every language has an X. Not every language has a Y. Who is to say which letters are acceptable and which are not?

The mendatory o ending creates nonsense. "Mario" is the perfect example. No decent IAL, even very imperfect, would have that kind of nonsense.

The -a ending is acceptable in Esperanto for female names. "Maria" is perfectly acceptable. Here at lernu!, we have two courses about "Ana" - not "Ano". Women can choose to use the -a or the -o. I go by Erinja, but I know a woman who goes by Elinjo. It's a matter of personal taste.

In any case, I don't see a problem with "Mario". Names change a lot when crossing language borders. "Mario" is closer to "Maria" then the English version "Mary". And none of them are really that close to the original Hebrew name of Miriam.

Esperanto would need a reform if it wants to be considered seriously as a IAL. It doesn't have to be radical. But at least it should do partly what Ido did.

Zamenhof actually did, under pressure from certain groups, publish a series of suggested reforms. They were turned down by the Esperanto speakers of the period.
http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformprojekto_de_Zam...

Esperanto is not a dictatorship. After Zamenhof designed the language, he gave it over to the speakers. It has been the Esperanto speakers themselves who have not wanted to reform things. Many constructed languages have died when they tried to reform themselves by force. Speakers fell away, couldn't agree on which reforms to carry out. And in the end, new speakers have been reluctant to learn. If you are reforming the language, why should I learn it at all? Why should I waste my time learning grammar that may be changed? Why don't I just wait until the perfect version? Why bother?

It's doing just fine at what it is: a hobby and nothing more. A IAL should be elaborated by a group of linguists who fully know what they're doing. Esperanto is a very fine effort by a single man, but has too many basic flaws to be taken seriously in its current form.

Lots of good things in history have been thought up by people who weren't professionals in the field, who were just messing around in their spare time and came up with something great.

However, if you truly believe that a linguist will always create a better language than a non-linguist, I suggest you check out something like Novial, which was created by a linguist. There are a bunch of IALs created by linguists, and by committees; I'm sure it will be no problem for you to find plenty of information on them. If someone decides that Esperanto is not for them and prefers to pursue another language, they are certainly welcome to do that.

The fact you can't even type the language properly with a normal keyboard speaks volume. It's normal, a single person can't elaborate alone something so complex.

I can't even type French with my normal keyboard. I also can't type Hebrew. I have to download special keyboard drivers to type them! I guess that must mean it's not worth learning them, since I can't type them with my normal keyboard. Right? As an English speaker whose keyboard contains no diacritics whatsoever, I guess I'm limited to... uh... Latin, English, and those constructed languages that are based on the English alphabet with no diacritics.

But in real life, I downloaded keyboard drivers for whatever languages I needed. My computer has support for French, Italian, and Hebrew, according to my various needs. I could easily install more if I needed to, but I don't. It's not really a big deal, and I'm sure this is standard procedure for people who need to use different languages on a regular basis. The standard Swiss keyboard has support for both German and French letters. I can imagine that if Esperanto use is ever widespread, something similar would happen. Probably the Esperanto letters would be linked to the Alt-Gr key or something. Now that Unicode is fairly widespread, I don't see keyboards as being a big issue.

Plus there are a number of proposals for Esperanto spelling reforms to eliminate the circumflexes. People aren't generally interested in that, though, so none of the proposals have very widespread support. It would be a relatively easy retrofit on the language, though in most cases something would be lost in ease of pronunciation (spelling would no longer be 100% regular, according to most proposals.)

djeepywta:
What significant parts of his rebuttal I've ignored? I answered almost every argument he provided.

The problem is the absence of arguments for your claims. It's hard to debate a point (see title of this thread) without arguments.

If we're going to have a constructive debate about Esperanto's plural marker, or any other attribute, then we need to know the arguments on which your claims rest. For example, "IAL shouldn't have unusual letters, period." That is an assertion, not an argument. Clearly you believe it strongly, but that's not an argument either. Is there any reason why anyone else should believe it? That's what we need, if we're going to have a useful discussion.

Another important point is openness to reforms. Esperanto is in fact open to some reforms, not others. Historically, Esperanto reform projects and other IAL projects with long records of reforms have not fared nearly as well as Esperanto itself. That gives us at least some evidence that fundamental reforms can be corrosive. You'd need to provide some reasons to believe that fundamental reforms would not undo the progress that Esperanto has already made. As awake pointed out, Esperanto is *already functioning* as an IAL, not just a hobby. It's not anywhere near as widely used as English, of course, but it's not clear that that has anything to do with its plural marker, alphabet, or anything of the sort.

In matters of taste, there can be no argument.

I agree, but there is are certain basic stuff that is more than just a matter of taste. Consonants lumped together like some Eo words isn't really pretty no matter what your taste are. Also, the Esperanto grammar I took at the library admits plural with j is a weird choice.

Who is to say which letters are acceptable and which are not?

At the moment, most people have a standard keyboard. I don't see the point to have the very weird "ŭ" when there is "w" easily available on most keyboard, for example.

The -a ending is acceptable in Esperanto for female names.

I've noticed that, it just shows the "all nouns must end in "o" rule is silly. Another rule that needs to go. It makes sense to end all adjective, verbs and adverbs with the same letter, but not nouns.

If you are reforming the language, why should I learn it at all? Why should I waste my time learning grammar that may be changed? Why don't I just wait until the perfect version? Why bother?

It doesn't need to be "perfect". It needs to get rid at least of the most obvious flaws.

If someone decides that Esperanto is not for them and prefers to pursue another language, they are certainly welcome to do that.

I don't think it's a question of personal preference, I think it's a question of what would be best for humanity.

I can't even type French with my normal keyboard. I also can't type Hebrew.

French and Hebrew aren't generally considered as a IAL. I don't think neither should be.

Spelling would no longer be 100% regular, according to most proposals.

I think many flaws of Eo are precisely because there is too much emphasis on regularity. A IAL needs to be logical, coherant, practical, not too hard to learn... Not 100% regular, it's silly.

djeepywta:Consonants lumped together like some Eo words isn't really pretty no matter what your taste are.

Those kinds of consonant groupings usually only occur in compound words, and in compound words, you can choose to keep the /o at the end of a root to facilitate pronunciation. So, for example, "birdkanto" and "birdokanto" are both considered correct.

Also, the Esperanto grammar I took at the library admits plural with j is a weird choice.

I don't really have a problem with it. And as Todd noted, I doubt that Esperanto would be accepted or rejected by the world community based on what it uses as its plural ending. Personally, the -j ending was one of the things that drew me to Esperanto. I though it looked cool.

At the moment, most people have a standard keyboard. I don't see the point to have the very weird "ŭ" when there is "w" easily available on most keyboard, for example.

Standard keyboards vary significantly, though.

I've noticed that, it just shows the "all nouns must end in "o" rule is silly. Another rule that needs to go. It makes sense to end all adjective, verbs and adverbs with the same letter, but not nouns.

I don't really understand why. What is your reasoning behind this?

Personal names are not required to follow any particular form in Esperanto. They are not treated the same way as regular nouns. I see no problem with this.

And personally, I appreciate having a standard noun ending. I use it a lot when turning a verb or an adjective into a noun. That facet of the grammar would no longer be possible if nouns didn't have a set ending.

It doesn't need to be "perfect". It needs to get rid at least of the most obvious flaws.

This, too, is a matter of personal opinion. Most Esperanto reform projects that got rid of the "obvious flaws" introduced more flaws in the process. And what one person considers an obvious flaw could be considered as a positive attribute by another person. I think it would just lead to endless debates over what is a flaw and what isn't.

If someone decides that Esperanto is not for them and prefers to pursue another language, they are certainly welcome to do that.

I don't think it's a question of personal preference, I think it's a question of what would be best for humanity.

That's quite a sweeping statement. I hope you are not trying to imply that your personal opinion on what is good or bad in a language is what is best for humanity.

In the matter of an IAL, people have very, very different ideas of what they want in a language. Rather than reforming Esperanto to conform with your personal ideas about what is good or bad in a language, why not look at other languages that are out there and decide which you feel is the best, and support that one? And if none of them is the best, why not come up with your own? If you believe Esperanto is so deeply flawed, I'm surprised you're still here having this conversation, rather than looking at some of the other options available to you. Wouldn't humanity be better off if a language with a better basis than Esperanto were chosen? Wouldn't it be better to work off a language that you thought was better from the start, rather than making extensive reforms on Esperanto?

I can't even type French with my normal keyboard. I also can't type Hebrew.

French and Hebrew aren't generally considered as a IAL. I don't think neither should be.

That wasn't my point. My point was that when deciding whether to learn a language, most people look at aspects other than what is on their computer keyboard.

And in the modern age - no more typewriters, which have their alphabets built in - I don't personally believe keyboard is an issue. If I can type French and Hebrew without a problem on my US American keyboard, why would a couple of extra Esperanto letters bother me?

I think many flaws of Eo are precisely because there is too much emphasis on regularity. A IAL needs to be logical, coherant, practical, not too hard to learn... Not 100% regular, it's silly.

Irregularity goes to ease of learning. Being able to hear a text and write it without orthographical errors. However, this is somewhat of a milestone for me; your message may be the first time I have ever heard anyone complain about Esperanto for not being irregular enough.

T0dd:
The problem is the absence of arguments for your claims. It's hard to debate a point (see title of this thread) without arguments.

Maybe... But I think my claims rely on common sense enough that they're both claims and arguments. If I say "ses" and "sep" are too similar, what more can I add? To me this is an argument by itself, it doesn't need any more justification.

Why would an IAL have unusual letters? I can't possibly have an argument to support that, this is just too obvious.

As awake pointed out, Esperanto is *already functioning* as an IAL, not just a hobby. It's not anywhere near as widely used as English, of course, but it's not clear that that has anything to do with its plural marker, alphabet, or anything of the sort.

It still remains basically a hobby. If you want to speak with an Eo speaker, if you want to find an Eo book, etc you really have to make a clear effort. It's not even close to be an "effective" IAL. If I go to any country, it will be way way way easier to find an English speaker than an Eo speaker.

It's not more popular because well... I think the question should be: "why should we consider Eo at all for IAL?", rather than "should Eo become the IAL?".

djeepywta:
It's not more popular because well... I think the question should be: "why should we consider Eo at all for IAL?", rather than "should Eo become the IAL?".

That's a great question. Why are you wasting your time with a language you don't seem to agree with, rather than moving on to something better? Isn't spending a lot of time on this like spending more and more money on a losing bet?

erinja:

djeepywta:
It's not more popular because well... I think the question should be: "why should we consider Eo at all for IAL?", rather than "should Eo become the IAL?".

That's a great question. Why are you wasting your time with a language you don't seem to agree with, rather than moving on to something better? Isn't spending a lot of time on this like spending more and more money on a losing bet?

So if I learn japanese, I'm wasting my time because I don't think it should become the IAL?

I think Esperanto is fun on paper, and is fun to learn.

djeepywta:So if I learn japanese, I'm wasting my time because I don't think it should become the IAL?

I think Esperanto is fun on paper, and is fun to learn.

Learning a language is never a waste of time, in my opinion. I just don't agree with proposing changes to languages. Languages naturally evolve, and that's ok, but I don't really like legislating evolution. Perhaps you didn't mean your writings to come off this way, but from what it sounded like based on your postings, you didn't think Esperanto was worth learning unless it had some significant changes made.

If someone thinks that Esperanto shouldn't become the IAL because of its flaws, that person is certainly entitled to their opinion. But if that is their opinion, I think the solution is to find a more suitable language, not to make changes to Esperanto. Esperanto already has an established literature and community, and my personal opinion, based on the history of constructed languages, is that large changes rather than natural (slow) evolution tend to destroy language communities rather than improving them.

I doubt Esperanto will ever be chosen as an IAL, and I doubt that the world will ever see an IAL come into extensive use. But Esperanto is more than a hobby for me, in spite of that opinion. It is a worldwide culture in which I feel very much at home. When you learn other languages, you can read their literature, but it never really becomes your literature, it is always "theirs". With Esperanto, the language is yours - the culture becomes yours, the literature becomes yours, and the community becomes yours. It doesn't happen like that with other language communities. You do have isolated instances when someone becomes a literary icon in a language that is not their native language. But in general, students of 'national languages' will be forever a foreigner to the language they have studied, and they will never have a sense of ownership of the culture and literature, simply because they weren't born into it.

I think this is part of the reason that Esperanto speakers don't usually respond well to criticisms of the language. A beginner looks at the language and they see all of the things that could have been done better, all of the -j endings, the words beginning with kv-, the names that don't look like they are used to seeing them, etc. Someone who has been involved with Esperanto for a long time looks at the language and they see all of the literature they have read, all of the people they have met, and how they felt when attending Esperanto events. At least that's how it is for me. They know that the language has flaws, but when they look at the language, they don't just see the flaws; they see the underlying philosophy and the ways their life has been different since they learned to speak it. At a certain point, most Esperanto speakers come to believe that the language is what it is, and they accept the language as it is, acknowledging its many flaws. The people who remain hung up on the problems in the language rarely integrate very well in the community and they usually end up moving on to something else eventually, or usually a whole succession of "something elses". I think this is why Esperanto reformist fads, though they do come along every now and then, never last that long. The community simply isn't that receptive to it. The reformers gather a few adherents but there are rarely any lasting changes.

Assertions aren't arguments. They're just statements of opinion. While it's true that opinions can and do have value, they aren't necessarily convincing to anyone else unless they're backed up by something a bit more substantial than just more opinions.

"It's obvious" isn't an argument, both because it sidesteps an actual explanation, and because what is obvious to one person isn't necessarily obvious to anyone else. Which means "it's obvious" stands a good chance of being actually wrong.

Some of your points seems to be:
1) Esperanto doesn't have a chance of being an IAL.
Except that it already is, used by many people in daily international communication. That makes it an IAL.

2) An IAL shouldn't use "j" as a plural.
Why? Because you don't like it?

3) "Knabojn" is ugly.
"Knabo" is a perfectly fine German word that I think many would defend as completely acceptable. Pluralizing it and adding an accusative case marker doesn't detract from it as far as I can tell.

3) You can't type the superscripted characters with a "normal" (whatever that means) keyboard.
Check it out: ĉĵĝĥŝŭ. I somehow managed to type those with my "normal" US-English keyboard, which came with my off-the-shelf computer bought right here in the US. No funny alt codes, no extra software layer, one keystroke per letter. Huh. The joys of keymaps.

Certainly those weren't all your points, but they were still about as substantial as the others.