Talk:Comparison between Esperanto and Interlingua

message: An anonymous user has been turning this article into something that would better be called Esperanto, Interlingua and Lingua Franca Nova compared. Now with all due respect to his or her efforts, but if we go on with this, this article will turn into the battlefield of one of those typical auxlang flamewars about whose language is better. I have nothing against LFN, but I don't think its presence in an article about comparing E-o and I-a is warranted. Otherwise we might as well add Ido, Occidental, Novial, Glosa, Europanto, Esperantido, Adjuvilo and about 500 other euroclones, and there you go. --IJzeren Jan 10:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LFN

message: I have made an attempt to "clean up" this article, and I hope it's now good enough to justify removing the clean-up tag. If not, please put it back, I won't be offended. No, honest, really I won't. Well, maybe just a teeny bit, but then thats Wikipedia for you, innit?.
However, I have to confess that I am normally a contributor to the Esperanto wiki, so although I have tried to conserve NPOV, my own inherent bias towards eo might show through, so any Interlinguistas out there, feel free to correct errors in fact, etc. Also, I am not a linguist. Sigh.
Le Hibou 00:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: I don't know enough about the movements of either language to write on them but it would be interesting to see the way they go about promoting the language. Interlingua doesn't even seem to have an agreement on whether it wants to be the universal IAL, although it looks like they've been doing a lot more of that lately. I noticed just yesterday for example, that the constitution of the EU that the Interlinguists translated (200+ pages I think) has apparently been sent to each member of the European Parliament for the to peruse. There's also their emphasis on science and so on, whereas Esperanto is much more of a from the bottom-up approach where they start with it as a method for meeting people in other countries, and the politics of the EU, scientific journals and whatnot are merely a small part. But those are just my impressions from what I know about the two. Mithridates 04:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respective movements 

message: I know I'm not welcome to edit this article, being an Interlingua speaker, but it might be worth noting that some people see the perceived 'non-neutrality' of either Esperanto or Interlingua as a strength, not a flaw.  Almafeta 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit playing the martyr and contribute. One of the editors above specifically said we need IL editors for this article. kwami 19:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I appreciate that the Eo editors have done their best to maintain NPOV. One point that needs to be worked on is the difference in linguistic philosophy. It's been argued that once you admit the basic philosophical differences, the different design decisions follow fairly naturally. But asserting that is one thing, writing it up is another.--Chris 05:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Its important to be neutral but the best contributers have an opinion. Totally neutral no opinion editors are dead editors(no offence intended.). And I encourage you again to Be Bold.--Jondel 06:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm going to be bold with my current series of edits. Let me know what you think.--Chris 18:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, somebody who speaks Interlingua, PLEASE add to the article. There is too much on Esperanto and too few about Interlingua. It would be really nice if every paragraph talking about Esperanto pros and cons had an correspondent talking about Interlinguas pros and cons... Just my opinion! I will, too, do my best to help this article reach its full potential!!! =]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.150.61 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can only add to the request  :-) As a non-either speaker, looking to pick up at least one of of the two, I felt the article lent towards a Esperanto point of view. I had a look at the talk page so see if there were any remarks on that, which seems the case. So Interlinguists, please write up!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:982:1768:1:21E:65FF:FEC8:7C5C (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called Neutrality 

message: I think something should be said about the different ways to express the same idea in Esperanto.
Note that the words  hospitalo, kliniko, lazareto, preventorio, sanatorio also exist in Esperanto. Other roots can also be used, b.i. kurac (medically treat).
Of course, the roots that are part of the fundamental vocabulary are preferred, but it is depending on the audience, and the skills of the speaker who can adjust to it.
The advantage of having many ways to say the same is that it permits to express an idea fluently, without hindering the comprehension.
If the root kurac comes first to my mind, I can easily build kuracejo. If I think of san, I can build resanigejo, what means a construction(ejo) where one makes(ig) people healthy(san) again(re). This flexibility makes Esperanto very comfortable to speak and listen to.
The remark about malsanulejo not being precise enough looks out of place. The word would be quite all right on most occasions.
--Remush 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  malsanulejo 

message: About "Esperanto's European character is purely accidental; proponents tend to stress its allegedly non-Western features for ideological reasons".
Probably the author misunderstood a phrase like: All the features of Esperanto are coming from western languages, but of course, some (many?) features of western languages are also found in non-western ones. 
--Remush 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-Western features 

message: This is really shoking. I changed quasi-religion to philosophy.
Using the term religion is quite inappropriate here, as Homaranismo aŭ Hillelismo is valid for believers and non-believers, and is more comparable to Buddhism. Anyway, Homaranismo is not promoted inside the Esperanto movement, and few Esperantists know what it is about.
--Remush 09:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quasi-religion of homaranismo 

message: I believe that this article is not written like a debate, but as an article which evenly treats the issue without switching sides constantly. Hence I removed the template at the top of the page.
I also feel that the article makes few, if any, dubious claims that would need citations. —Jchthys cont. 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written as a debate? 

message: Why is the Serbian paternoster here? Only English (readers' language), Esperanto and Interlingua (the two languages being compared) should be here.
Also, there should be no three-dot ellipses at the end of "but deliver us from evil"—that's where the Lord's Prayer ends in Esperanto as well as Latin and the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, even if the English version usually includes the conclusion. —Jchthys cont. 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paternoster 

message: Someone added this sentence:
:The use of diacritics in Esperanto makes it harder for typing and for users of languages that lack diacritics (e.g. English).
I'm dubious about the latter part of the sentence (and even the former part is less true than it used to be).  Can someone cite a source for the assertion that speakers of languages whose alphabet uses no diacritics find languages which use diacritics more difficult than languages without them, other factors (phoneme inventory size, etc.) held constant? --Jim Henry (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More difficult for speakers of English because of diacritics per se?