| I have a lot of respect for your opinions on language (given your background as a professional translator and the solid advice you regularly give here on HN and your website). Whenever a post about constructed languages comes up, you post this link, which I find disappointing: Rye's rant is, well, just a rant and his reasons for not learning Esperanto are just bad. There was a time when I spent a few months learning Esperanto. I eventually gave up because 1) whilst it is relatively easy to get going with Esperanto, speaking it comfortably would require about as much work as any other language and 2) the Esperanto community is made up out of folks that are either much older than me or a little strange. I don't think my first criticism is a fault of Esperanto. Human languages require a lot of convention and shared cultural ideas in order for communication to be compact and, at the same time, clear. No language, auxiliary or otherwise, can magically remove these requirements. The second criticism is perhaps a little unfair but still important. Cultural cachet is important for a language and a language that appears to cater only to certain groups is going to have a tough time. But if someone is keen to learn a new language, especially if that person is a monoglot, they should be encouraged to give it a try, even if their language of choice is Esperanto. They can only improve their linguistic skills. |