3 ms·
Yes, both sound farfetched because "easier to learn" does not imply "easy to learn". Those characteristics do make the language easier to learn, but its Indo-Eu
by lifthrasiir 7y ago
Yes, both sound farfetched because "easier to learn" does not imply "easy to learn". Those characteristics do make the language easier to learn, but its Indo-European lineage (that I have detailed in the sibling comments) makes it much harder to learn for non-Indo-European speakers.
- akvadrako 7y agoThe point is it's easier than all other human languages, not that it's easy in some objective sense - I don't even know what that would be.
- lifthrasiir 7y agoYour point is still not substantiated. There are many language pairs closer than Esperanto (I mean, there exists x and y such that `d(x,y) < max(d(x,eo), d(y,eo))`), even after the easiness due to the artificial origin is accounted for.
- akvadrako 7y agoOf course there are languages that are so close together speakers can understand each other without even studying. But I'm sure there is no language (with at least 1 million speakers) which is easier than Esperanto to learn for the average Asian. It isn't a European thing.