If there are fewer speakers of Esperanto per head of population in the English-speaking countries than in Continental Europe, this has probably very little to do with the fact that we native speakers of English already speak 'the real international language'.

It is more likely to be a reflection of the attitudes towards any foreign language learning. And in the case of the UK that we are an island.

Even after the murderous invasion of Britain by the Normans, we British didn't start speaking French. The Normans (who were actually Scandinavians) on the other hand adopted the local language of Northern France very shortly after their invasion of France.

The Romans too didn't persuade us to adopt Latin outside the clerical class.

The English attitude for centuries has been that we don't mind at all borrowing words from other languages if they seem useful but don't expect us to speak foreign.

An Esperantist from any country has no more reason to learn Esperanto because it is the world's lingua franca (it is not), than an Esperantist from anywhere else.

So the essential question is why does anybody learn Esperanto, not why do English speakers learn it.

The reasons are almost certainly various, but, in most cases, the answer is probably linked to the unusual linguistic characteristics of Esperanto. Though in the case of 'eternaj komencantoj', aspects of Esperanto culture may be the determining factor.

By the way it occurs to me that in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and in the US most inhabitants do not have ready access to a linguistic frontier. Malkiel por la popoloj de Kontinenta Eŭropo.

Belmiro:

qwertz:

Belmiro:Everybody in the world ( I think )speaks with tongue. That is a kind of Esperanto language. (!!!)

Sorry, I don't understand that. Did you mean "Everybody in the world ( I think )speaks with one language(=tongue)."? Could you explain that more in detail?

I beg your pardon. I tried to make a joke with the word. “Tongue” does not means “Language”. Tongue refers to the muscle we have in our mouth. Psittakos used this word instead of “Language”

Ah, okay. Yes I know that muscle in the mouth. But my Oxford English Mini-Dictionary also tells me that it is possible to use "tongue" for "a language" in frequency after that "mouth-muscle" meaning. That's what I was confused of. Anyway/Egal/Wie auch immer.

ceigered:But of course that does not affect my opinion of the languages (and of course, it's not the language which kills, it's the people who speak it who do as you said, but out there there seems to be a sentiment amongst some that languages are bloodied in some way, but if we think like that, EO soon too will be "bloodied").

I saw a TV report about a area where they show how some western movies will produced. One scence was this one: One guy at the roof were shoot down by somebody else. Peng. The thing was that the actor on the roof had some milk with red food coloring in the mouth which he was spitting against the roof before he was falling down into the billabong. Bäääh, what a mess! I forgot what language he spoke before he - whatever. Did sound like "Uff!" or something.

darkweasel:
No, we don't say we have one letter for each sound, but one sound for each letter.

It's the same thing with no difference depending the order you use... and lie alike.

No rule says that there may not be an alternative to the word with mal-.

If I create a regular-easy-to-learn language and create a prefix to express the opposite meaning with some words, why not to use it for every case? I take that as an irregularity.

Libero is an absolutely fine word, just as saneco is!

Neither "libero" nor "libereco" apears in any of my three dictionaries.

universa = related to the universe
universala = universal
... not quite the same thing.

Universal things are those that are related to the universe... whom are you try to cheat?

Esperanto is less western than it may seem on first glance. I won't repeat everything that Claude Piron said in Some Comments on Ignorance About Esperanto now, just read it yourself.

I read that and, honestly, I read more ignorance in the answers than in the questions... When try to persuade us that a Esperanto, in spite of was created for Europeans and based on European languages, is actualy an Asian language...

You're confusing the concepts of "international" and "widespread".

Oh, yeah? Then please help me in that doubt I have: McDonald's company in an "international interprise" or a "widespread interprise"? English is international because it's widespread, Esperanto is not because it isn't widespread.

tommjames:

I agree that Esperanto is easier to learn for some people than for others (something that is almost completely inevitable for any language and therefore not something to be taken seriously as a critique of Esperanto, as long as we're not talking about complex languages like Lojban that are equally difficult to everyone and hence pointless as an IAL), but to extrapolate from this that Esperanto is not significantly easier for people of the east than English, is frankly absurd.

It's not, a so-called neutral language must be alike difficult for all, if not, is not a real neutral one.

I'm glad you talk about lojban... I think Esperanto have a lot to learn from a project like this.

Even if we accept that Esperanto (...)The productive root/affix system and morphology (which actually has some striking similarities with some eastern languages) makes it vastly easier to comprehend and express ideas on the fly than it is in English. And on it goes.

The regularity of Esperanto is totally overrated... or the real languages' irregularities demonized (or both). When you can understand the simple and irregularities-free grammar of Esperanto, you have to learn still a completely different and numerous european vocabulary... As same as you if learn chinese: chinese grammar is also totally regular.

And the irregularities are always kept in real languages just in the most used words and expressions, so in a little time to learn are all dominated by the learners.

I have heard reports that some Chinese say they found Esperanto no easier than English. (...) of some Esperanto critics from the west.

Two things: The first is I can notice that you choose, according if it's or not convenient for your Esperantist ideals if data are real or not; if any notification show something which dismiss that Esperanto is brilliant, then it must be wrong... The second, I can assure you that...

I have no time to answer more... but have more to answer..

Psittakos:I have no time to answer more... but have more to answer..

I would fain postulate the opinion that if he would like to persue this discussion, Psittako should do so in Esperanto. This would have the added benefit of helping us avoid Psittako's mistakes and misconceptions that his English posts predicate, and allowing us to practice our Esperanto. After all, that is why we are here. It is why we all are here. I mean, why would he be on this site if he wasn't intending to learn Esperanto? Perish the thought that he be leading us on a fool's journey.
In truth, he must be an honest worthy. It would be abominable to play us falsely as to his motivations.
For shame on us all for frittering his time away.

Let us all continue this most erudite parlay in Esperanto. Thus translated, it will reach a larger audience as most of the earnest participants
on this site do not speak English. In fact, one might say that on this site the most widespread and universal language is EO.

To that end, I propose we no longer chew the stale bread of the pertinent argument for the sake of a lark.
For if indeed his reasons be the sowing of loathsome discord, may Psittako find the complexities that a native speaker of English may navigate safely as though the north star of grammar hangeth over her head to be pleasant like unto the downy pelt of the hare.

Psittakos seems to be someone who has suddenly discovered that Esperanto isn't *Perfect*, and, for some reason, is absurdly disturbed by this idea. This flaw and that flaw and all these other flaws, just make Esperanto so, so, so... FLAWED that it practically makes you cry.

You know the flaws he's talking about; those flaws that everyone, except rank beginners, have no trouble making their peace with.

But, it's *Inconsistent!!!*

Yeah, it is. So what?

But, it's not *Perfectly Regular!!!*

Oh, my. Whatever will we do?

Look, Psittakos, if you're going to argue against Esperanto, at least make them good arguments.

Just as one example, your statement that "one sound per letter" is the same as "one letter per sound" is patently ridiculous, and easily, provably, wrong. It's a TERRIBLE argument, because it's NOT an argument - it's just wrong:

1) Every individual letter in Esperanto has one sound assigned to it.
2) Not every sound in Esperanto is expressed with a single letter (for example, the "ej" sound is expressed with TWO letters).

The two statements are obviously not the same, in form OR in meaning. If you had thought about it, you would have seen that. So you clearly aren't thinking about it.

If you're not thinking about your own arguments, why should any of us bother? As it is, you're just being a troll.

And my feedbag is now closed.

Psittakos, dude, aren't there three billy goats gruff crossing a bridge somewhere who need your attention right about now? Seriously though, I gather from your posts you aren't keen on e-o for various reasons, and you like to tell people about it.

E-o may not be perfect but it also ain't your foe, bro.

Karaj angloparolantaj geamikoj:

Psittakos estas konfliktema hispana homo kiu starigis, en la hispana forumo, la samajn problemojn kiel cxi tie (vidu "Fernando Savater ataca el Esperanto").

Estas senutile diskuti kun li, aux provi konvinki lin. Li amegas disputojn.

(Bonvolu traduki tiun mesagxon angle).

Saluton al cxiuj bonvolaj homoj el Hispanalando.

antoniomoya:Karaj angloparolantaj geamikoj:

Psittakos estas konfliktema hispana homo kiu starigis, en la hispana forumo, la samajn problemojn kiel cxi tie (vidu "Fernando Savater ataca el Esperanto").

Estas senutile diskuti kun li, aux provi konvinki lin. Li amegas disputojn.

(Bonvolu traduki tiun mesagxon angle).

Saluton al cxiuj bonvolaj homoj el Hispanalando.

Dear English-speaking friends, Psittakos is a conflict-tending Spanish dude who raised, in the Spanish forum, the same problems as here. (see (the thread) "Fernando Savater ataca el Esperanto")

It's pointless to discuss with him, or try to convince him. He really loves disputes.

(Please translate this message into English)

Hello to all the nice folks from Spanish-speaking countries.