I haven't looked into how Esperanto is inconsistent and I'm sure it's very consistent compared to modern languages. I think the two are built on two different p

I haven't looked into how Esperanto is inconsistent and I'm sure it's very consistent compared to modern languages. I think the two are built on two different paradigms though. Esperanto seems to be a language built for easy adoption. The grammar and vocabulary seem to be a somewhat fair mixture of popular natural languages with the hope for easier adoption. A claim I've heard is that someone that knows Chinese or English would be able to communicate effectively in Esperanto in four months. I see the goal of Lojban being different. Lojban's grammar is based on predicate logic with the intent being a syntactically unambiguous language. This makes it more like a programming language than a natural language. The two bleed into each other often since Lojban's root-words are similar to those in popular natural languages and Esperanto is a constructed language with a simple grammar so it's naturally (artificially?) much more consistent than current spoken languages. I just think Lojban's goal is more interesting than Esperanto's despite honestly feeling like Esperanto is better suited to be a natural language replacement. Esperanto certainly has more resources and support. I'm no linguist and I've only superficially researched either so spare me if I'm being unintentionally disingenuous to either camp or misinterpreted their claims.