There can be quite of bit of prejudice against Esperanto by the average man in the street. But since his views are not informed, they don't count for much.

The conlangers are largely harmless fantasists and have so far to go in turning their projects into languages with a serious body of speakers, a literature, usage-based dictionaries and analytical grammars like PAG or MPEG, that there doesn't seem to be any way that they can catch Esperanto up.

The conlang-ists have, at least, accepted in principle that a constructed language could become an actual living language.

The true enemies of Esperanto are the pontificating polyglots and linguisticians who don't know Esperanto and who are wedded to the idea that they have some special insight into how languages must work - conveniently overlooking that Esperanto is a different animal to the national languages and that there is no established body of scientific evidence that supports their notion of Universal grammar, or provides a proven model of human Language.

These are the people who might seriously impede the introduction of Esperanto into the schools, or its adoption as a working language in an international organization.

These people experience some theoretical discomfort from the existence of Esperanto, because it may undermine their pet theories of language. Or its widespread adoption may make their hard-won mastery of the chaotic systems of natural languages less marketable.

Oh FFS...

Polyglots and linguists aren't a bunch of demon people. Esperanto's "enemies" are thickskulled arseheads. Whether those arseheads happen to be linguists is the same as whether a drugatic happens to be a teacher or whether a murder is a fan of harry potter.

sudanglo:The true enemies of Esperanto are the pontificating polyglots and linguisticians who don't know Esperanto and who are wedded to the idea that they have some special insight into how languages must work...

These are the people who might seriously impede the introduction of Esperanto into the schools, or its adoption as a working language in an international organization.

You can also include in the list eternal beginners like me who, instead of learning the language, spend much of their time theorizing if something could be said in a different ("better" according to them) way.

sudanglo: These people experience some theoretical discomfort from the existence of Esperanto...

I agree with the fact that much of the opposition to Esperanto comes not from those who use it but from those self proclaimed experts who watch Esperantists speak in their language.

But these prejudices cannot just be eliminated by begging people to learn Esperanto. We should better spend more time learning the language and putting it to test everyday. When others will see us, they will follow us of their own will.

It took me more than two years to convince myself that Esperanto is not some sort of code and that I can risk spending time learning it. How long is it going to take me to make someone believe in Esperanto if I myself don't speak it fluently?

These are the people who might seriously impede the introduction of Esperanto into the schools, or its adoption as a working language in an international organization.

These people experience some theoretical discomfort from the existence of Esperanto, because it may undermine their pet theories of language. Or its widespread adoption may make their hard-won mastery of the chaotic systems of natural languages less marketable.

Or, God forbid, they might have a sound point in opposing Esperanto because it might not be as necessary and beneficial as it's cracked up to be or at least not to the point where such drastic measures are necessary

I sincerely doubt that no matter what Piron or whoever it was says about the lurking Esperantophobia in all non-Esperantists (I know he didn't technically say that), that just because someone opposes the adoption of Esperanto, they must be afraid of it.

We who want Esperanto to be promoted in some way do not necessary hold the keys to what is good and right in the world. Our language is not necessary. We want it promoted simply because we'd like it that way. When things come down to pure volition, resistance is bound to occur and should for as long as people aren't mindless monsters.

Ceiger, careful reading of my post will show that I am not demonizing all linguists, but rather those who adopt a certain position.

The problem is that outsiders seeking advice will make the assumption (as, it seems to me, do certain linguists) that they are equipped with special insight that despite their lack of knowledge about Esperanto allows them to pass qualified judgement.

The reason why Esperantists would like more people to speak it is not, mainly, because of some virtuous quality it possesses but for the sheerly practical point that it becomes more useful.

If you are the only person in a town with a telephone, you naturally want other people to get connected so that you can phone them up.

sudanglo:Ceiger, careful reading of my post will show that I am not demonizing all linguists, but rather those who adopt a certain position.

OK, I'm sorry, It's just that I'm seeing "linguist" and potentially offensive comment towards various bits of linguistics and it's feeling like you have a bias against the poor chumps.

sudanglo:If you are the only person in a town with a telephone, you naturally want other people to get connected so that you can phone them up.

A poor analogy, seeing as it only takes 5 minutes to learn how to use a telephone.

Wow, I would be careful about throwing about that "enemies of Esperanto" statement, it makes Esperanto sound like a political party or a religious sect, which it isn't, as we all know.

However I will happily talk about opponents of Esperanto. I think that Claude Piron's essay on why people oppose Esperanto is maybe a little overblown but I think he has a valid point. Why do people so strenuously object when you say you're learning Esperanto? Why do they care how you spend your free time, and why don't they object so strenuously to other hobbies that the same person would probably also deem useless? [take your pick - making homemade ketchup, learning Inuktitut, riding a unicycle). There is a whole world full of hobbies that people are happy to ignore if it isn't interesting to them. If you don't want to make homemade ketchup, then don't visit websites about making homemade ketchup. You don't post a huge online rant about how awful and misguided people are, who like to make homemade ketchup. Instead, you ignore them.

However people spend hours of their time posting lengthy websites about how awful they think Esperanto is. I wonder why they care.

I also wonder why Esperanto speakers care when someone chooses to learn Ido or whatever. Ido is a small language, weak in numbers. We shouldn't care. If Esperanto isn't for this person, then they are free to do whatever they want, and that's none of our business. I think that some Esperanto speakers get angry and defensive about these situations because they feel that Esperanto is under threat, or that Ido will somehow replace it.

And I have a feeling that the root cause of this knee-jerk negative reaction in Esperanto speakers, against languages like Ido, is similar to the knee-jerk negative reaction that many people have to English. No one wants to feel that their language will be replaced or become obsolete - or worse, that they have wasted hours upon hours of their time, and loads of money, on learning a foreign language (English, French, what have you) that will no longer be necessary for succeeding in tomorrow's world. Or, native speakers of today's important languages realize that their skills give them an advantage, and they aren't anxious to lose this advantage.

I'm not sure Erinja. Aren't we in some way like a political party?

If we are not trying to change the world (linguistically) are we not no more than indulging ourselves in some harmless hobby - like the trekkies who have fun phrasing stuff in Klingon. They presumably have no wider ambition, but don't we?

Not to say, of course, that anybody who learns Esperanto must commit to the cause.

Everybody is free to learn the language for whatever reason. But I would see myself as more than a hobbyist, and I guess a lot of other Esperantists would think likewise.

Your comments about the (surprising) passion of opponents would suggest that the view that the Esperantists are upto something is widely held.

There is a reaction that people have to things that they are unfamiliar with. This reaction can be seen in just about anyone, but is more noticeable in intellectuals. The reaction is roughly this: If there any merit in this, I'd already know about it. Since I don't know anything about it, there must not be any merit in it.

When you take that stance, it's easy enough to seize upon any detail that you know, or have heard about second-hand, and use it as a basis to dismiss the whole thing.

We all do this. Not toward Esperanto, of course, but toward other things.

The trouble is, when actual linguists do it, their opinion is thought to have special value.

The New York Times recently ran a story about this "information cascade" effect, in which misinformation spreads from person to person because people who don't know much about something assume that the person they heard it from knows more. The case discussed by the NYT is the idea that dietary saturated fat is bad for us, which has never had much scientific support, but which has been repeated thousands of times by doctors and scientists who assume that someone else knows what they're talking about. I think the prevailing view of Esperanto is much the same.

This is why just mentioning Esperanto to people who know you and don't think you're a complete nut job helps to counter the cascade. It's easy to hide one's Esperantismo (I've done it), but counter-productive.

Todd