Polaris:
While I honestly don't like the use of the letter C when pronounced as TS (why a letter made up of other sounds? Why not just use a TS for that sound?), it bothered me greatly that they would just skip the letter, so I never adopted that. Now I'm glad I didn't.

If that were the case then ĉ would be tŝ and ĝ would be dĵ.

In the unua libro and in few beginner texts the morphemes are split by apostrophes, like muze'e.

Usually brazilians tends to pronunce 'ĉio', 'tio', 'tiu' and 'ĉiu' all the same way. In portuguese thease all means 'uncle', the only difference is the regional accent. I had to work hard on it, nowadays i can pronunce it just fine.

Aŭstinano:

Frankouche:I usually say sii instead scii and sometimes ĵ instead ĝ, ŝ instead ĉ, or j instead i for exemple in kjo/kio, tju/tiu...
I think it's not a problem to be understood. These sounds are a little allophonic.

It *does* cause problems for being understood. If you're not going to make an effort to pronounce the sounds in a language, you're putting all of the effort in a conversation on the listener. It's going to be difficult/unpleasant to listen to you speak.

Imagine an english speaker learning french and just deciding "I'll just use the english R sound and throw in any old vowel that sounds easy to say." Awful, no?

The pronunciation facets Frankouche has mentioned are certainly not big enough to impede comprehension. Anyway, lots of people use k instead of ĥ (e.g. kaoso/ĥaoso, tekniko/teĥniko, kemio/ĥemio).

gyrus:

Aŭstinano:

Frankouche:I usually say sii instead scii and sometimes ĵ instead ĝ, ŝ instead ĉ, or j instead i for exemple in kjo/kio, tju/tiu...
I think it's not a problem to be understood. These sounds are a little allophonic.

It *does* cause problems for being understood.

The pronunciation facets Frankouche has mentioned are certainly not big enough to impede comprehension. Anyway, lots of people use k instead of ĥ (e.g. kaoso/ĥaoso, tekniko/teĥniko, kemio/ĥemio).

That's debatable. Most of them are pretty similar, but "kjo" and "tjo" is just plain strange. The accent falls upon the "i" so to have it be so slurred and unaccented would harm comprehension of a word that should be coming out KIo, TIo.

The k instead of ĥ situation is different, as it is essentially official. The Akademio de Esperanto said that "rĥ" in words can always be replaced with "rk", and most other k-variants are in the various Official Additions to the Fundamento.

Aŭstinano:

Frankouche:I usually say sii instead scii and sometimes ĵ instead ĝ, ŝ instead ĉ, or j instead i for exemple in kjo/kio, tju/tiu...
I think it's not a problem to be understood. These sounds are a little allophonic.

It *does* cause problems for being understood. If you're not going to make an effort to pronounce the sounds in a language, you're putting all of the effort in a conversation on the listener. It's going to be difficult/unpleasant to listen to you speak.

Imagine an english speaker learning french and just deciding "I'll just use the english R sound and throw in any old vowel that sounds easy to say." Awful, no?

Do you really think that we all prononce esperanto the same way ? You're kidding !

By the way, words like :

manĝi : manger (french) = manĵe (fonetike)
ŝanĝi : changer = ŝanĵe
ŝanco : chance = ŝanse
scienco : science = sjense
aĉeti : acheter = aŝete
ĉar : car = kar
And many others !

Why should i prononce these typically french words in an another way ?

It's very very tiring ! And i won't ! most of the time

I would have liked that these words would have been completely different, than resemble to the french one's.

Z was certainly influenced by an anti-french (anglo saxon ?) lobby, as for the ci/vi pronouns ...

gyrus:The pronunciation facets Frankouche has mentioned are certainly not big enough to impede comprehension. Anyway, lots of people use k instead of ĥ (e.g. kaoso/ĥaoso, tekniko/teĥniko, kemio/ĥemio).

A single change in pronunciation will likely not hinder comprehension. A whole mass of changes will. I have met people who spoke with strong national accents who believed that they can be easily understood. I am sure that for people used to the accents of their countries, they are very easy to understand. But for me, I have to listen extremely carefully to understand what they're saying. Esperanto is very international and accents used do very. However, it has an international norm of pronunciation, laid out in the Fundamento. The closer you get to that norm, the easier it will be for others to understand you.

That remembers me that I once spoke to some Esperantists who I hardly could understand... the reason was that they were pronouncing words in such a weird way!!

So, Frankouche, bear in mind that if you're talking to a Japanese or a Thai, you might not be understood.

What would you think if I speak inglish in MY way (if any) and few people can understand me?
Cheers.

Jes:That remembers me that I once spoke to some Esperantists who I hardly could understand... the reason was that they were pronouncing words in such a weird way!!

So, Frankouche, bear in mind that if you're talking to a Japanese or a Thai, you might not be understood.

What would you think if I speak inglish in MY way (if any) and few people can understand me?
Cheers.

That's why for exemple sometimes occurs airplanes accidents because even english is not standard and is difficult to understand.

So if i'm the buyer and you the seller, YOU will make an effor to understand me !

Even, if i speak french to an other french, i must adapt my language, it depends of social, professional conditions. So with foreigners in french or in Eo, it will be the same.

Now, if i say "mi sias tion, sed mi devas asxeti tiun" and you don't understand, so...i don't know...maybe esperanto is definitly not a good language by lack of flexibility

I would probably understand. But komencantoj with a different language background may not, so just try to pronounce words as they are written.