@Paksu
I suggest you try to calm down and read closely. And if you feel more comfortable discussing in Esperanto or Chinese, we can do that in another thread.

OK, so if you would like to continue the discussion in English. I can help you summarize up the points against your proposal.

1. (@Rogir pointed out) It is counter-fundamental if you want to add new letter into Esperanto, which according to Zamenhof is untouchable, even if it's wrong.

1.1 There has been change in Esperanto, yes. But all the change are within the Fundament, like choice of style, etc.

1.2 (The reason behind the untouchability of Fundament) Changing the fundament of Esperanto means that those have already learned the language will have to change too. This has in history proved to be risky.

2. Argument above explains the risk of a change. So the following are the points proving that adding /e ~ ɛ/ won't benefit enough.

2.1 First of all, people don't get frustrated at the lack of some sound. Rather they do when there is a sound they can't readily make.
Do you hate Chinese or English for lack of, say, /ʂ/ or /ɲ/? The only comment you have regarding English was that you have difficulty on its /θ/ sound.

2.2 Deleted. Read the following explaination by ceigered.

2.3 Actually the ambiguity of a 5-vowel system is that people all over the world of differnet accent are free to vary within the range of comprehension. "E" can be prounounced as /e ~ ɛ/ if you like. Just keep it consistent.

2.4 If it's really with the name that you're concerned, you know you can leave it out un-Esprantized. This is allowed by PMEG, and is in fact the practice of many. That is, if you do care that much about the exact proununciation of a name.

------------------------------------
Therefore we see that there is a huge risk of a change in the alphabet which doesn't promise much benefit on a global scale. That's a question we want you to think about.

paksu:Respect is of most valuable word in the process of translation. The cultural sensitivity must be taken into account.

I'd disagree quite a lot - the most important part of translating is making sure the source text can be understood for all that it is worth. "Respect" generally comes after that, as "respect" is linked to emotions - and emotions change all the time, so it's impossible to translate so that something is "respectful" forever.

See Dynamic and Formal Equivalence.

(Also in Simple English for our non-native English speakers)

LyzTyphone:2.2 Second, I know you believe /e ~ ɛ/ is universal in Asia. But according to my research, neither mandarin, Japanese, Vietnamese or Hindu language has the exact sound.

NO~! -slaps LyzTyphone with an organic carrot- Just joking~!

But in all seriousness, what we are referring to is the /e~ɛ/ (your generic "e" sound), and then adding the schwa /ə/ (or /@/ for XSAMPA). So he's saying the "e" sound and the "ə" should be added. In Malaysian, e and ɛ are allophonic, the "same" sound, just like the English 'e' in the word pen or bed.

With that clarification, Mandarin does the sound that Paksu wants to add (at least good ol' mainland Putonghua has it, I believe), in words like 的, 了 etc, that reduced "e" sound (although, I think some chinese pronounce this as "a" at times, yes?). So, Mandarin is in the same boat as Malaysia, in that it distinguishes /e~ɛ/ from /ə/, like the 电 in 电话, vs. the 们的 in 我们的 (although, the "eh" sound in 电 has a y/i sound at the start).

Japanese, however, doesn't have it. It uses "a" to "imitate" the sound, so that won't work at all for Japanese Esperantists unless they practice! Koreans are somewhere in the middle, but they have LOTS of vowels in their language (none of which are exact matches to the schwa). Vietnamese, as evident here, does have the schwa.

As for European languages, Catalan does have the schwa, as does Portuguese (although Brazilian Portuguese acts differently), French, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, English, Dutch, Romansch (I think), Luxembourgish, heck the list can go on.

The biggest problem against the schwa, however, as I think Erinja and a few others told me ages ago when I first joined the forums, is this:
The schwa is reserved for breaking up consonant clusters for people who can't pronounce them properly.

The next problem is that such a change to esperanto can only happen if it becomes mainstream. Practically speaking, this process would take years, and might not even work. So the only hope for the schwa is if it slips into the language undetected, as it has partially as a heavily accented allophonic variant of "e" and "a" by speakers of certain languages like English.

I, however, have no problem with extra Latin characters being used within Esperanto to represent the schwa. It would be optional, however, just as it is optional to write "Fiancé" with an "é" in English. The pronunciation would be impossible to enforce as well, just as in English people pronounce "Fiancé" as "fionsey" and not the same as in French.
It wouldn't be part of the core language though.
(Personally, I think we should get rid of this blasted Latin alphabet and learn braille instead. That way signs only have to have the Braille, and both blind and sighted people can read them (or in the blind's case, feel them).

The next problem is that such a change to esperanto can only happen if it becomes mainstream. Practically speaking, this process would take years, and might not even work. So the only hope for the schwa is if it slips into the language undetected, as it has partially as a heavily accented allophonic variant of "e" and "a" by speakers of certain languages like English.

Good point!ceigered

But, we should ask why it is not being into the mainstream for Esperanto.

If there is no improvement, i did not say change, there would have less attrative to the people and don't forget the British is throwing millions of pounds into the commonwealth countries each year to maintain English language as second or third language.

Besides, the newly created language of Mondlango is picking up fast.

http://www.mondlango.com/english/

http://www.mondlango.com/english/Lalov.htm

I, time again, like to stress that i do not represent Chinese, Japanese,Indian etc speakers to voice the concern of the "ə", but it is as one of the ASEAN countries, that i know, not all but few of the languages that they have "ə" sound heavily in their daily life.

LyzTyphone:Do you hate Chinese or English for lack of, say, /ʂ/ or /ɲ/? The only comment you have regarding English was that you have difficulty on its /θ/ sound.

For your information, I was borne before the Malaya Penisula gained her independence. Would I have problems in the /θ/ sound ?

All my teachers were from Britain.

paksu:the newly created language of Mondlango is picking up fast.

http://www.mondlango.com/english/

How fast?

It's a nice proposal in itself, but most potential customers will probably go to Ido instead, which implements essentially the same changes, and is already a (relatively) big and well known alternative.

I myself will stay with Esperanto.

Firstly, regarding Mondlango, I have to say that such a language is going down the path of most-resistance - the problem being that it has to compete with (in order):
- The dozen or so Esperantidos,
- Ido,
- Esperanto itself,
- The other latinate conlangs, including Interlingua (a major player vs. Esperanto due to its strong organisation, but despite people taking it more seriously no one learns it lol), Lingua Franca Nova (important due to its extreme ease which makes Esperanto look over-complex) and about 1000 other little ones
- The non-latinate conlangs, such as Lojban, and dare I say Volapük if it makes a comeback
- The scientific languages such as Latin herself and Greek
- and finally the major modern languages such as English, Mandarin, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Indonesian etc.

As you can no doubt see, Mondlango will have a hard time becoming popular from a traditional perspective (I do think Mondlango looks nice for an Esperantido though). The same situation also applies for any suggested improvement (such as our beloved schwa) to Esperanto, for example:
- It first has to be used by the person wanting it in the language
- It then has to be used for its intended purpose (e.g., "Sẽlamat estas "sekura" aŭ simila vorto") in literature and writing
- It then has to be accepted and written into grammatical literature, e.g. PMEG explaining what this new "ẽ" is mean to be
- it has to be accepted by whoever can accept these kind of things, be it as a recognised unofficial letter or something similar.
- Finally it has to be taught and actually used by everyone.

If it doesn't get far enough, it'll just be forgotten

But in all seriousness, what we are referring to is the /e~ɛ/ (your generic "e" sound), and then adding the schwa /ə/ (or /@/ for XSAMPA). So he's saying the "e" sound and the "ə" should be added. In Malaysian, e and ɛ are allophonic, the "same" sound, just like the English 'e' in the word pen or bed.

I see! I was confused as to which sound we are talking about.

The cold is killing me, so I will leave this discussion to you guys~

ceigered:

The same situation also applies for any suggested improvement (such as our beloved schwa) to Esperanto, for example:
- It first has to be used by the person wanting it in the language
- It then has to be used for its intended purpose (e.g., "Sẽlamat estas "sekura" aŭ simila vorto") in literature and writing
- It then has to be accepted and written into grammatical literature, e.g. PMEG explaining what this new "ẽ" is mean to be
- it has to be accepted by whoever can accept these kind of things, be it as a recognised unofficial letter or something similar.
- Finally it has to be taught and actually used by everyone.

If it doesn't get far enough, it'll just be forgotten

It is a good joke isn't it ? It is like asking the driver without licence to go on the road to test drive and get the test later.

With the letter/ẽ/ not being included in the alphebet order, how it would be taught to the learners?

Well, i shall end this suggestion here and if there is no professional view or those from the authoritative organisation, my view will remain unchanged.

Cheers

paksu:It is a good joke isn't it ? It is like asking the driver without licence to go on the road to test drive and get the test later.

With the letter/ẽ/ not being included in the alphebet order, how it would be taught to the learners?

It is not a joke. It's how Esperanto works.

The Academy of Esperanto doesn't create language reforms and tell Esperanto teachers to teach them.

Zamenhof, the initiator of Esperanto, gave up his rights to the language, and gave the language to its speakers. Therefore, Esperanto belongs to all of its speakers.

The way that changes happen in Esperanto, it is initiated by the speakers themselves, not by the Academy. The Academy look at forms that are in use and sometimes makes recommendations on which forms are preferred to others. If a new word or form is seen as being (a) in wide use, and (b) relevant to the langauge (not previously existing), then the Academy could proclaim that this element is official.

Certain things can be changed in Esperanto. New meanings can be added to existing words, new words can be added, new grammar endings. But these changes come about in a natural way. Someone makes up a new word that they think is useful. Other people also find the word useful, so they start to use it. When lots of people use it, if the Academy decides that it is a useful word and in wide use, they might make it official.

So if you want to make a change in Esperanto, the change starts with you. You must personally start using Esperanto with the change you suggest, and see if it catches on. That's the only way that changes happen; it's initiated by regular people like us, not by any official organization.

As far as being taught to learners, many Esperanto courses try to include only official elements. It's the same way that most English classes teach correct grammar, and not slang. When the slang forms become "correct", in the future, then maybe classes will teach them. But most language classes teach a fairly traditional form of a language.