Date: 06 Sep 95 00:29:09 EDT
From: Jeffrey Henning <74774.157@COMPUSERVE.COM>
To: Conlang <conlang@diku.dk>
Subject: CONLANG: Esperanto Reforms
Message-ID: <950906042909_74774.157_EHL68-1@CompuServe.COM>
Sender: owner-conlang@diku.dk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Jeffrey Henning <74774.157@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Status: OR

As a planned language, and not a linguistic movement, where do you feel that
Esperanto needs improvement?

Here's some areas David Crystal (_Cambridge Encylcopedia of Language_)
identified where Esperanto could use improvement, in order to make it even
easier to learn:

Pronunciation:
*  Fewer diphthongs.
*  Fewer sibilants.
*  Fewer consonants in general.

Orthography:
*  Replace circumflex with use of 'h' (permitted by Esperanto but not widely
used).

Vocabulary:
*  More international vocabulary, like _hospitalo_ instead of _malsanulego_.
*  Eliminate false friends like _foresto_.

Grammar:
*  No objective case.
*  No agreement between nouns and adjectives.


Caveat:  I'm just interested in how people might revise Esperanto as an academic
exercise.  I have no plans to create a new language descended from it and
convince people to use it instead of Esperanto!  That would be like coming up
with a new version of OS/2 and trying to get Windows users to switch.<G>

I realize there have been a lot of reformed versions of Esperanto out there
(Ido, Latin-Esperanto, Modern Esperanto).  Anyone out there know the
philosophies of each relative to reform?

Finally, what's the simplest effective grammar anyone has ever seen for a model
language?  Esperanto's is pretty concise, but I know someone out there has made
it even simpler.


Best regards,

Jeffrey