3 ms·

> It's not. It is needlessly complicated. "Basic," "Simple," or "Technical" English (which came along a few years after Esperanto) is far simpler and quicker to

> It's not. It is needlessly complicated. "Basic," "Simple," or "Technical" English (which came along a few years after Esperanto) is far simpler and quicker to learn. I'm sure it's easy to say that when you are already an English speaker. I personally doubt it very much. Is there some data maybe that supports this point of view?

Beltalowda 4y ago
As a non-native speaker, I think it's "easier" in the sense that many non-native speakers already tend to have some exposition to English through music, films, and other media. For Esperanto, this exposition is basically 0 unless you're a geek and watched that William Shatner Esperanto film. The amount of exposition varies based on a number of factors, but anything is better than nothing.
- mariusor 4y ago
  I see, that makes perfect sense. But I wouldn't call the language itself being "easier" but rather the process of learning it. However I don't think parent meant it like that.
axiolite 4y ago
> I personally doubt it very much. It might help if you specified exactly what it is you doubt... It's a simple fact that Basic English has a shorter wordlist than Esperanto, simple rules, and being based on English it omits things like gender for objects. While perhaps exaggerated, the claim was: "it would take seven years to learn English, seven months for Esperanto, and seven weeks for Basic English." Some references to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/ https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/ https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_English https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_Englis...
- mariusor 4y ago
  The first doubt was around the fact that a language with the pronounciation background coming out of the English language will be "easier" to learn than a strictly phonetic one. Just looking over the list of words in your last link, I'm pretty sure that any number of them would trip someone that is a blank slate. For example: "who", "wheel" and "humour" are vastly inconsistent with regards to how they sound. Having to learn these idiosyncrasies, even for 900 words, would be - in my opinion - more difficult than the basic rules of Esperanto (and Ido, which seems even simpler). I would imagine that coupled with a phonetic transliteration of the common sounds it would be easier but then the language would probably become a different thing all together. I hope that clarifies a bit.

Beltalowda 4y ago

As a non-native speaker, I think it's "easier" in the sense that many non-native speakers already tend to have some exposition to English through music, films, and other media. For Esperanto, this exposition is basically 0 unless you're a geek and watched that William Shatner Esperanto film. The amount of exposition varies based on a number of factors, but anything is better than nothing.

mariusor 4y ago
I see, that makes perfect sense. But I wouldn't call the language itself being "easier" but rather the process of learning it. However I don't think parent meant it like that.

axiolite 4y ago

> I personally doubt it very much. It might help if you specified exactly what it is you doubt... It's a simple fact that Basic English has a shorter wordlist than Esperanto, simple rules, and being based on English it omits things like gender for objects. While perhaps exaggerated, the claim was: "it would take seven years to learn English, seven months for Esperanto, and seven weeks for Basic English." Some references to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Criticism https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/ https://englishharmony.com/english-is-easy/ https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_English https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Basic_Englis...

mariusor 4y ago
The first doubt was around the fact that a language with the pronounciation background coming out of the English language will be "easier" to learn than a strictly phonetic one. Just looking over the list of words in your last link, I'm pretty sure that any number of them would trip someone that is a blank slate. For example: "who", "wheel" and "humour" are vastly inconsistent with regards to how they sound. Having to learn these idiosyncrasies, even for 900 words, would be - in my opinion - more difficult than the basic rules of Esperanto (and Ido, which seems even simpler). I would imagine that coupled with a phonetic transliteration of the common sounds it would be easier but then the language would probably become a different thing all together. I hope that clarifies a bit.