RiotNrrd:Honestly, if a flaw is so subtle that the speakers of the language can't see it, then I question whether or not that flaw is worth fixing.

No one who knows anything about Esperanto has ever claimed that it isn't inconsistent. Inconsistency is not necessarily a flaw. Esperanto wasn't designed to be "perfect" or "logical", however. It was designed to be EASY. Which it is. It is very debatable whether any "fixes" would make it soooo much easier that they are actually warranted. Sure, they might make it a little easier, but there is definitely a point of diminishing returns, and I think most speakers would claim it has already reached that point in its design.

It's because you take complex linguistic concepts for granted, as did Zamenhof. Zamenhof said himself in Unua Libro that the sounds were recognizable by (paraphrase) "any civilized society." It was that kind of elitism that turned me away from Esperanto. It was then I decided to make a true international language.

I have found away to fix Esperanto's inconsistencies while still making the language easy to learn.

razlem:Vocabulary borrowed from more languages (rather than a Latin/Germanic-based vocabulary), no accusative case, no subjunctive or imperative inflections, among other things.

In that case, no, I'm not really interested in learning the latest and greatest Ido Of The Week. What you've listed are not "more universal" traits anyway, but rather "more English-like", aside from the vocabulary.

And in regards to the vocabulary, a truly international vocab would be completely a-priori, i.e. not borrowed from any language but just made up. This is because no matter how many languages you borrow from, there will always be some that are left out in the cold, and your decision as to which languages to borrow from will necessarily be arbitrary. Even if you decide to borrow from the most widely-spoken languages, that is still an arbitrary decision. Who are you to say that Mandarin is a better source of words than Sango or Inuit? Who cares if it has more speakers?

[Actually an a-priori vocabulary would be easier to make than borrowing from hundreds of different languages. Start with your language's sound inventory and phonological constraints (if you don't know what those are, start by learning some basic linguistic concepts before you go making a new language-- maybe start with url=http://www.zompist.com/kit.html]the Language Construction Kit[/url]), then write a computer program that will randomly assign words to allowed syllables.]

Regarding the other things (accusative case, etc), you have to bear in mind that those features exist in Esperanto for a reason. If you take them out, you have to replace them with some functional equivalent. A word's role in a sentence must be indicated in some way. Common ways are a case system, prepositions, postpositions, or a standard word order, or some combination of these. It is common for an English speaker to assume that since a fixed word order is easier for him, it must be easier for everyone. But in fact, "easier" in this case just means "more English-like". A fixed word order has its own host of problems, especially when it comes to questions and relative clauses, and objectively speaking, it's not really any easier when you get right down to it.

razlem:I have found away to fix Esperanto's inconsistencies while still making the language easy to learn.

Very good! I wish your new language all the luck in the world.

As Erinja mentioned, of course, THIS site is about Esperanto. So please don't be disappointed if the people here don't immediately abandon Esperanto for your new and improved ido.

razlem:It's because you take complex linguistic concepts for granted, as did Zamenhof. Zamenhof said himself in Unua Libro that the sounds were recognizable by (paraphrase) "any civilized society." It was that kind of elitism that turned me away from Esperanto. It was then I decided to make a true international language.

Hold on - forum users here probably know me well enough to know I have an obsession with empathy, so please forgive me for continuing this obsession here - but I don't think you're applying enough into your language design and thoughts on this issue. Was it true elitism, coming from someone in that part of Europe, where Zamenhoff came from? Also, are you saying that there are people who are too dumb to be able to recognise those sounds in civilised society? You must approach this from the viewpoint of all parties involved.

To some extent, it is harsh to say "any civilised society", but to some extent it IS true. If a society isn't civilised, how else are they to come in contact with all these "foreign" sounds? They can't! But if they're civilised, then we can assume they are able to communicate with outsiders and are willing to approach new things, yes? So then there's no problem really. They're human after all, you could unintentionally offend someone by telling them they "civilised" yet "incapable of producing the sounds of Esperanto". Most people who have problems pronouncing Esperanto simply aren't exposed to it enough and would have similar problems no matter what language they were studying if they didn't put any more time into learning it.

It's all fine basically. I think you're reading into this a bit too much and forgetting to view this from other peoples viewpoints and thus are underestimating the abilities of your fellow humans, and taking the words of others from a vastly different world to our own the wrong way. After all, what would a Polish eye doctor care about modern day political correctness?

And to be honest these linguistic concepts aren't that important. We ain't robots who must follow a strict set of rules, we're adaptive humans.

And also, how true is your international language? Have you taken into consideration the opinions of Indonesians, Ukrainians, Somalians, the Vietnamese, Argentinians, Australian aboriginals, Tibetians, the Chinese (who are also the biggest ethnic group on the planet)? Additionally, languages descended from Latin or heavily influenced by it are the most successful on the planet, with almost half the world's population having been exposed to them quite heavily.

Let's take a while to cooldown and think before the throw the truth out the door

(Also, is that Balto for your picture? 'Twas a great movie, well at least I thought so when I last saw it as a kid )

ceigered:
If I may ask - "irregular derivational morphology" - can you give a few examples?

When you inflect a root, the vowel endings should classify the root in the same manner as other roots.

For example:
Rugxo - something red?
Rugxa - red
Rugxi - to red?

These words are all based on an inherent adjective- red.

Donaco - gift
Donaca - gifty?
Donaci - to give

These are based on an inherent noun - gift.

Kuiro - a cook? (a chef should be kuiranto)
Kuira - cooky?
Kuiri - to cook

Based on an inherent verb.

You can see that rugxa - rugxo does not carry the same semantic transition as kuira - kuiro (the latter of which can not even be used). Why can things only be "rugxa" instead of "kuira" or "donaca"?

ceigered:It's not quite all black and white though:
What is "better"?
What is more popular?
What are people willing to speak?
Are people as receptive to the idea of new conlangs (that aren't zonal like interslavic and interlingua) when there's a more established conlang with a large speaker group?

That's what I'm studying linguistics to find out. What is the most efficient form of communication? Why learn Esperanto when English is already worldwide?

ceigered:Also, as with any creation, the creators intent leaks through it. If you want to make something better than Esperanto, it may show, almost like an Oedipus complex. This is something you want to avoid, since it can turn an Esperantido into something that looks like a wanna-be Esperanto or Ido (if we imagine them to be the parents in this oedipus complex analogy ).

I would change Esperanto directly, but no one will allow it. It essentially forces reformists to make their own language. Rather than have one good language, we have many languages with many faults.

ceigered:Furthermore, a linguist is to study and report back on the features of languages and analyse them so that we better understand languages. That does not make a good conlanger. Similarly, a conlanger is not a very good linguist. One must acquire both skills respectively as neither automatically provides someone with the other when attained.

I have created multiple conlangs, auxiliary and artisitc, and I have studied linguistics. Better yet I've studied interlinguistics- how people from different language backgrounds find ways of communicating- and I have incorporated this knowledge into my model language.

razlem:Why can things only be "rugxa" instead of "kuira" or "donaca"?

Things can be "kuira" or "donaca".

"Kuira kurso" - a cooking class.
"Donaca ĉevalo" - a gift horse.

trojo:In that case, no, I'm not really interested in learning the latest and greatest Ido Of The Week. What you've listed are not "more universal" traits anyway, but rather "more English-like", aside from the vocabulary.

No, these traits are just less European. English does express the subjunctive and the imperative, and it does have an objective case.

A priori vocabularies are impractical, so I chose the fairest alternative.

trojo:Regarding the other things (accusative case, etc), you have to bear in mind that those features exist in Esperanto for a reason. If you take them out, you have to replace them with some functional equivalent. A word's role in a sentence must be indicated in some way. Common ways are a case system, prepositions, postpositions, or a standard word order, or some combination of these.

They have a purpose, but so do the 25+ cases in Hungarian. I have included a standard word order in my revision. Questions begin with interrogative particles and relative clauses are taken care of (another discussion in itself)

razlem:Why can things only be "rugxa" instead of "kuira" or "donaca"?

Why do you assume they can't be? I would generally read kuira as "culinary". Similarly, donaca, pertaining to a donation, seems pretty clear to me.

While Esperanto has flaws, this particular complaint just boils down to lack of familiarity with the language.

@ceigered

I paraphrased what Zamenhof said in Unua Libro. I assume you've read it? Just note that 'uncivilized' in Zamenhof's time was almost every country outside of Europe, and that foreigners had such little contact with these languages.

It's not that people don't have the mental capacity to learn these sounds, it's just that the sounds don't exist in their language. Yes, with study people can learn, but why not make it easy from the beginning? You can make just as many words with fewer phonemes.

Back then, Esperanto was politically correct. But things change after 150 years. Then-uncivilized societies suddenly prosper, spreading their own linguistic influence around the globe.

My revisions are natural, not like Lojban or other logic-based IALs.

And yes, it is Balto. It's one of my favorite movies

trojo:While Esperanto has flaws, this particular complaint just boils down to lack of familiarity with the language.

And which makes a good example of seeing a flaw where no such flaw exists.