From: lendonc@cognos.com (Cleve Lendon 3821)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto
Subject: Difficult
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:43:39 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet

>Cleve Lendon writes:
>>
>>The main design goal of Esperanto was to be easy to learn, and it is. Roots
>>were borrowed from national languages so that they would be easy to recognize
>>and remember.

>This, of course, is the standard propaganda line for Esperanto.  I mean no
>offence by this, because I recognise the importance of promoting the
>language.  However, the trouble is that we end up believing our own
>propaganda.

>The Esperanto movement has always been a largely European phenomenon and
>(with the exception of the recent work of Claude Piron) the linguistic
>problems of non-Europeans are generally ignored completely.  Most Esperantists
>tend to believe their own propaganda and think that the language is easy
>for everyone to learn.  In fact, however, even within the movement itself 
>there is evidence to suggest that many find Esperanto difficult to master.  

Difficult compared to what? English? Chinese? Spanish? 

>Unfortunately the myth that Esperanto is an easy language has done a lot
>of harm to the movement because it has prevented us from taking
>steps to simplify the language.  I'm not talking here about reform
>of the grammar or basic syntax.  For the reasons that are given
>in the FAQ to this newsgroup, I am very doubtful of the benefit
>of this type of change.  However, reform to the vocabulary is vital.

>It is outrageous that one has to remember three different root words
>to express the idea of editing: redakt-, redaktor-, redakci-.  Unfortunately,
>all three forms are commonly used.  This is no isolated example.
>Esperanto has three different words to express the idea of "prison":
>malliberejo, karcero, prizono.  

I agree about redakt-. We should use redaktisto and redaktejo. However, 
karcero is a room and prizono is a building.

>Unfortunately, although most Esperantists pay lip service to the idea of
>having a vocabulary which is easy to learn, in practice nothing is done
>to remedy the present appalling situation.  If Esperantists only realised
>that Esperanto is a *difficult* language for most people, they might be
>more inclined to do something about it.

>Barry

Unless I misunderstand, you are saying that Esperanto has too many words. 
Here's another opinion:

"Dum la nacilingvaj vortaroj havas proksimume la saman ricxon, la esperanta
vortaro, ecx PIV, nanas kompare al ili, malgraux siaj kunmetajxoj eblaj kaj
neeblaj. "

Fernando de Diego
en esperanto, aprilo 1992

My translation:
"While the national language dictionaries have approximately the same richness,
the Esperanto-dictionary, even PIV, is a dwarf compared to them, in spite of
its combinations, possible or otherwise."

And from the foreword to the Wells' dictionary (1969):

"The Esperanto-English section comprises roughly 9,000 entries, while the 
English-Esperanto section comprises some 19,500. The reason for this 
imbalance will be obvious: the English words see, sight, visible and visual,
for example, require four separate entries, while the Esperanto vid/i, from
which vido, videbla and vida are regularly and automatically derived, 
requires one. One of the principal factors making Esperanto so relatively
easy to learn is the regularity with which different parts of speech,
derivatives, and compounds are formed from a single root."

John Wells

And now for my two bits :-)

Obviously, Esperanto's vocabulary is not perfect. But I think that when 
compared to any national language, Esperanto's inconsistencies are relatively 
few.

Klivo