4 ms·

^This seems to have been downvoted for tone. Fair enough, but I do encourage anyone with an interest in Esperanto to read the linked document. It is a classic p

^This seems to have been downvoted for tone. Fair enough, but I do encourage anyone with an interest in Esperanto to read the linked document. It is a classic post on the complexities of Esperanto that are not obvious to the casual learner, that contains quite a lot of insight.

Viliam1234 3y ago
The entire list is just one huge Nirvana fallacy. Okay, so Esperanto is not literally perfect, it has some flaws... and therefore we should reject it, and instead use some language that has 10x or 100x more of exactly the same flaws? How does that make sense? Some of the objections, I am not even sure what the author tried to say. For example, point 01a, Esperanto has only 5 vowels, while English has 19. Uhm, interesting, but... are you saying that more is better? I guess that would be a subjective choice: more vowels allow words to be shorter, but are difficult to learn for people who do not have such vowels in their native language. So it is not obvious whether 5 or 19 is better; probably depends on whom you ask. Point 01b, Esperantists from different countries pronounce the sound R slightly differently. Well yes, that is what you inevitably get when people from different countries try talking the same language. Do you think their versions of English are the same? Point 02d, Esperanto has accented letters that do not exist on English typewriters. Sure, Esperanto and hundred other languages. What's your point? Is a language universal only when it uses English alphabet? Also, this is not a problem in practice, you either install a keyboard for the language (just like you do with every language other than English) or simply use the "x-method" (write accented letters as letters followed by "x"). But most objections are simply of the kind "I would do it differently". Cool, go ahead and design your own language. Then wait to see it reviewed by someone like you.
- senkora 3y ago
  I tend to agree with your three specific objections: - 5 vowels is actually a very good choice (although the diphthongs in Esperanto are notably odd) - pronouncing the R differently is unavoidable and probably fine - the x-method works okay in practice (although I subjectively don’t really like it) The linked page is “the page” on the problems with Esperanto, and I still think that it has a lot of insight, even if I don’t agree with every point he makes. For example, I had no idea how much East Slavic grammar influenced Esperanto, or how important word order was in practice for complex sentences. I think it’s reasonable that a much better IAL than Esperanto could be designed today, given all the knowledge of linguistics that we now have, and all of the experienced conlangers. I don’t think that Esperanto is so good that surpassing it would be “one huge nirvana fallacy”. But I also don’t expect anyone to ever make an IAL that is more successful than Esperanto, because Esperanto’s success was a product of its time. Nowadays, with the status of English, and the availability of machine translation, an IAL is just less important than it once was. On a positive note: I recommend the book “In the Land of Invented Languages” by Arika Okrent for a history of conlangs. As a shibboleth, here is a sample of my own shitty conlang, whose design I will not attempt to defend: anu, ʃamuti usli bisini uma kamlusu slapluŋwu ixla dwamuʒu aku pluŋwuslu bisana aku pwanusu ʒapwunu aku pumuʃwu ixla bluŋusu ʃwutuŋu aku pluŋwuslu aʃa ʒubunlu dimivi… azi ʃumuti ivwu sunwubi xubuŋu bisini uma ʒamigi ivwu vamidi idu bisini bunluʒu xudwunu iza. ʒamigi ivwu vamidi idu bisini uma bisini sudumu fupumu fupumu uta βubunu uta ʃutwumu itu tunuʒu ixla buʒunlu. kiŋliɣi ixla tiniʒi guŋuʒu iba: ʃamiti kiɣiŋi uma mlupuʃu, iʒi igi vabwiŋli ʃubunu uta afu, iʒi xinlipi baʒinli mlupuʃu, azi xunlapa usli bisini mlupuʃu. ʒlumlaga bisini ŋlagusu bisana ibi vwadluŋlu itu xunlapa bisini ŋuguʒu, azi vaŋupa usli, iʒa zwuŋika ivwu suŋibwa bisini ŋladluvwu ixla ŋatuɣwu. udi ʒiŋiti biʒinli busini paŋuɸu xwaguŋu uŋwa ʒabunlu iʒi ʃumuti ivwu sunwubi xwuguŋu bisini uma xanlipi bisini ŋuguʒu. dwinixi iba. iʒi xaŋiti bisini. diŋixwi ixla paŋiɸi xwagiŋi vwiŋigi ivwu sinwibi guŋuʃu bisana, paŋiɸi uŋwa kaŋiɣli pamluzu.
  - Viliam1234 3y ago
    > I think it’s reasonable that a much better IAL than Esperanto could be designed today, given all the knowledge of linguistics that we now have, and all of the experienced conlangers. I think it is likely that many mistakes could be recognized and avoided. The attempt would probably still fail, because after all the obvious mistakes are fixed, different opinions would still remain, and people would start fighting over that. Anyone joining the discussion would feel qualified enough to propose their own ideal language, and none of the proposals would get enough fans to create an actual community of speakers.

Viliam1234 3y ago

The entire list is just one huge Nirvana fallacy. Okay, so Esperanto is not literally perfect, it has some flaws... and therefore we should reject it, and instead use some language that has 10x or 100x more of exactly the same flaws? How does that make sense? Some of the objections, I am not even sure what the author tried to say. For example, point 01a, Esperanto has only 5 vowels, while English has 19. Uhm, interesting, but... are you saying that more is better? I guess that would be a subjective choice: more vowels allow words to be shorter, but are difficult to learn for people who do not have such vowels in their native language. So it is not obvious whether 5 or 19 is better; probably depends on whom you ask. Point 01b, Esperantists from different countries pronounce the sound R slightly differently. Well yes, that is what you inevitably get when people from different countries try talking the same language. Do you think their versions of English are the same? Point 02d, Esperanto has accented letters that do not exist on English typewriters. Sure, Esperanto and hundred other languages. What's your point? Is a language universal only when it uses English alphabet? Also, this is not a problem in practice, you either install a keyboard for the language (just like you do with every language other than English) or simply use the "x-method" (write accented letters as letters followed by "x"). But most objections are simply of the kind "I would do it differently". Cool, go ahead and design your own language. Then wait to see it reviewed by someone like you.

senkora 3y ago
I tend to agree with your three specific objections: - 5 vowels is actually a very good choice (although the diphthongs in Esperanto are notably odd) - pronouncing the R differently is unavoidable and probably fine - the x-method works okay in practice (although I subjectively don’t really like it) The linked page is “the page” on the problems with Esperanto, and I still think that it has a lot of insight, even if I don’t agree with every point he makes. For example, I had no idea how much East Slavic grammar influenced Esperanto, or how important word order was in practice for complex sentences. I think it’s reasonable that a much better IAL than Esperanto could be designed today, given all the knowledge of linguistics that we now have, and all of the experienced conlangers. I don’t think that Esperanto is so good that surpassing it would be “one huge nirvana fallacy”. But I also don’t expect anyone to ever make an IAL that is more successful than Esperanto, because Esperanto’s success was a product of its time. Nowadays, with the status of English, and the availability of machine translation, an IAL is just less important than it once was. On a positive note: I recommend the book “In the Land of Invented Languages” by Arika Okrent for a history of conlangs. As a shibboleth, here is a sample of my own shitty conlang, whose design I will not attempt to defend: anu, ʃamuti usli bisini uma kamlusu slapluŋwu ixla dwamuʒu aku pluŋwuslu bisana aku pwanusu ʒapwunu aku pumuʃwu ixla bluŋusu ʃwutuŋu aku pluŋwuslu aʃa ʒubunlu dimivi… azi ʃumuti ivwu sunwubi xubuŋu bisini uma ʒamigi ivwu vamidi idu bisini bunluʒu xudwunu iza. ʒamigi ivwu vamidi idu bisini uma bisini sudumu fupumu fupumu uta βubunu uta ʃutwumu itu tunuʒu ixla buʒunlu. kiŋliɣi ixla tiniʒi guŋuʒu iba: ʃamiti kiɣiŋi uma mlupuʃu, iʒi igi vabwiŋli ʃubunu uta afu, iʒi xinlipi baʒinli mlupuʃu, azi xunlapa usli bisini mlupuʃu. ʒlumlaga bisini ŋlagusu bisana ibi vwadluŋlu itu xunlapa bisini ŋuguʒu, azi vaŋupa usli, iʒa zwuŋika ivwu suŋibwa bisini ŋladluvwu ixla ŋatuɣwu. udi ʒiŋiti biʒinli busini paŋuɸu xwaguŋu uŋwa ʒabunlu iʒi ʃumuti ivwu sunwubi xwuguŋu bisini uma xanlipi bisini ŋuguʒu. dwinixi iba. iʒi xaŋiti bisini. diŋixwi ixla paŋiɸi xwagiŋi vwiŋigi ivwu sinwibi guŋuʃu bisana, paŋiɸi uŋwa kaŋiɣli pamluzu.
- Viliam1234 3y ago
  > I think it’s reasonable that a much better IAL than Esperanto could be designed today, given all the knowledge of linguistics that we now have, and all of the experienced conlangers. I think it is likely that many mistakes could be recognized and avoided. The attempt would probably still fail, because after all the obvious mistakes are fixed, different opinions would still remain, and people would start fighting over that. Anyone joining the discussion would feel qualified enough to propose their own ideal language, and none of the proposals would get enough fans to create an actual community of speakers.