razlem:Why reject something that makes sense?

See Todd's message above. There will not be agreement on whether it does make sense. In my view, it most likely won't, because it is usually beginners who think that the prospective reformation of Esperanto could be up for grabs. That is not the case. So let them learn the language as it is, first of all.

erinja:It's not rejecting something that makes sense, not at all. It's rejecting something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Are we still talking about English here? I don't like Ogden's work because it would rely too heavily on root combination to a point where it becomes illogical. But this is just one proposal out of thousands. If I took the time I could probably make a proposal to change English. But I have neither the time nor the influence to go through with such a project.

Comparison is a tricky concept. Things can be compared in different ways, often depending on the views of the speakers. Natural languages especially are near impossible to compare to each other objectively except in the case of dialects. Constructed languages like Klingon, Quenya, Esperanto, and Interlingua, however, are objects- built for a specific function. This is why I don't get the "because Esperanto is the easiest language" hook. It's easy and neutral compared to other natural languages- but natural languages weren't meant to facilitate international communication. You'd have to compare this claim to another language whose primary goal is also facilitated international communication (Ido, Interlingua, Angos, etc.)

@erinja: I am not actually interested in comparing Esperanto to anything. It's a living language, period. And you don't just go about reforming a living language. In this respect I treat all living languages equally.

Living languages are reformed around every century. Russian alphabet has been reformed a century ago, chinese has adopted pinyin in parallel with ideograms, german no longer is written in gothic and has got minor changes, french also has known minor orthographic reforms...

And if someone proposed to unite the alphabet and reform simultaneously the spelling of all EU languages in order to get a standard orthography for proper names, maybe the project would get a lot of supporters.

Oh my word. Perhaps there is simply no hope for this English forum. People just love discussing anything to do with reform, just for the sake of it.

Maybe we should just accept that this is how it is in the English forum. Some kind of theorising dumping ground. Some manage to come through it and eventually learn Esperanto. Others don't.

As has been mentioned before, many people are attracted to Esperanto due it's logical aspects, but then they are disappointed to discover that the language in fact seems to be less than perfect in this respect. And then we have their complaints, mutterings and suggestions for 'improvements' here in the English forum. No doubt in the other national language forums, too. I fear it might simply be impossible to avoid this.

I can only suggest to such people that it is probably impossible to make a perfectly regular language, perfect in all regards. Esperanto is a jolly good effort, though. A lot of tinkering was required to get Esperanto to what it now is. But the tinkering had to stop at some point, so that people could actually get on with using it in a consistent way! If they hadn't stopped tinkering due to some obsession to achieve absolute perfection, then a community of speakers would never have been able to develop. The language would have died.

I suppose the only hope is that those interested enough will find the pro-Esperanto comments in this English forum by means of a Google search. I'm sure that all the reasons why reform to Esperanto is not a good idea can be found here. This very thread contains a lot of them.

Hopefully, enough will be able to accept the occasional imperfections of Esperanto and learn to appreciate the far greater number of advantages that it offers. I see it as a choice between endlessly faffing around aiming for an imppossible perfection, or embracing the genious that Esperanto already offers.

I think I'll stop subscribing to the English forum so as to not repeat myself any more. I'm going to stick to the Esperanto-language forums now. Hope to see you there!

Constructed languages like Klingon, Quenya, Esperanto, and Interlingua, however, are objects- built for a specific function.

Whoops! Only one of these is a language. Why does this category error get repeated.

sudanglo:

Constructed languages like Klingon, Quenya, Esperanto, and Interlingua, however, are objects- built for a specific function.

Whoops! Only one of these is a language. Why does this category error get repeated.

Now whose the one treating these as if they were second-class?

Chainy:
I can only suggest to such people that it is probably impossible to make a perfectly regular language, perfect in all regards. Esperanto is a jolly good effort, though. A lot of tinkering was required to get Esperanto to what it now is. But the tinkering had to stop at some point, so that people could actually get on with using it in a consistent way! If they hadn't stopped tinkering due to some obsession to achieve absolute perfection, then a community of speakers would never have been able to develop. The language would have died.

Of all the opinions of the language, the above quote i think is the best!

I chose to learn Esperanto because it is considerably easier than national languages, and it is the conlang with the greatest volume of resources, especially in education.

The most fascinating thing about comments about Esperanto is, come conlangers whinge that it is too irregular, while the linguistically elete of the world whinge that it is not irregular enough! Maybe Esperanto has found the middle ground

IMHO, the only Esperantido worth worrying about is a TRUE Esperantido. That is, a conlang that has been designed and constructed by the global Esperanto speaking world. This language would have the true knowledge of the Esperanto experience and therefore better designed than the genetically modified Esperantido's that currently exist. Whether such a conlang would ever be designed is a different matter.

Altebrilas:
And if someone proposed to unite the alphabet and reform simultaneously the spelling of all EU languages in order to get a standard orthography for proper names, maybe the project would get a lot of supporters.

Hey, i have been thinking about that lately! It would be a very interesting project! Why a different pronunciation for "ch" in every language? Why can't we agree on the phonemes for è and é? At least t, p, k, l, m, n and d are (almost) the same every language. But, unlike you, i think such a project would get fewer supporters than Lojban...

Personally, I think it makes sense for those of us at Lernu to adopt the following rule regarding reforms to the language:

When the rest of the Esperanto-speaking world adopts some particular reform, we will too. But not before then.

The purpose of Lernu is to teach as much of a "standardized" Esperanto as there is. Once a particular reform proposal is accepted by the global community of Esperanto speakers, it will then have become standard, and therefore those of us at Lernu will adopt it[1]. Prior to that worldwide acceptance, there is no point in taking it seriously at Lernu, as it is, by definition, nonstandard.

Lernu does not drive changes to Esperanto. We only reflect the state of Esperanto as it is today. We adopt things last, not first (which makes sense for a teaching site).

So, if you've got some incredible idea for making Esperanto better, run it past the rest of the world. If you can convince everyone elsewhere to use it first, then we will too. If it's really a good idea, it shouldn't take all that long to get global acceptance. You can do it! And when you've succeeded, your idea will be taught here at Lernu too! So shoo! You've got work to do, and it isn't getting done here!

Never let it be said that we aren't open to change.

The change just has to jump through a few hoops first.

----------
[1] Written by someone who does not speak for Lernu or for anyone else, but who presumptively writes like he does. I think it's a reasonably accurate statement, though.

razlem:

sudanglo:

Constructed languages like Klingon, Quenya, Esperanto, and Interlingua, however, are objects- built for a specific function.

Whoops! Only one of these is a language. Why does this category error get repeated.

Now whose the one treating these as if they were second-class?

I must agree (that is if Sudanglo isn't joking). To insist so mightily that Esperanto is a language and to then say all those other conlangs aren't? Blatant hypocrisy, and only justifies the flak Esperanto gets for being a made up language doesn't it?

There is nothing that separates EO from those languages. They all have speaker bases, cultures (even though the cultures may take root in different things), and all the necessary linguistic components to justify them as languages. The only thing EO has that they don't is some shining purpose created by a deludedly yet admirably hopeful man.

RE unifying orthographies in all the EU languages, I don't think it's workable. Each orthography works as part of a language's "DNA", and reflects the unique trends that the language tends to take in its evolution.

That said, if someone can figure out a way to represent all those EU languages while keeping the system in line with each of their individual evolutions (remembering that many languages have similar sound changes), I'd cheer them on, but it's one of those "finding the hidden universal language in the brain" things, albeit much easier