> It is a bit like Esperanto or something like that. Maybe I am just brain damaged from growing up in a world with English and other messy spoken languages but

> It is a bit like Esperanto or something like that. Maybe I am just brain damaged from growing up in a world with English and other messy spoken languages but my intuition suggests that perfectly structured languages are possibly the wrong approach. You seem to be implying Esperanto's lack of popularity is related to its regularity, but I don't think it has anything to do with that - it comes down to network effects. It's not an official language in any country. There are very, very few native speakers of Esperanto. Of those blessed few, they obviously have at least one other native language, otherwise they'd be completely cut off from society. And by the same token, English is popular as a second language due to network effects and the benefits learning it can confer (read: better economic opportunities) and little to do with its regularity. A lot of people have had the experience of learning a bit of Spanish and realizing that English's spelling system is atrociously irregular and we gain nothing by having so many spelling rules that have so many exceptions they can hardly be considered "rules". In fact, English's spelling used to be much more regular, it's just that our pronunciations have shifted a lot over time while the spelling has remained relatively static. This is all tangential to your larger point, I just like talking about this kind of thing.