2

I should state right now that I don't want to start a flamewar. People favor different aspects of languages and like what they like. All languages are beautiful.

I know that Esperanto draws a lot of inspiration from latin, germanic and maybe slav languages. Of all the esperantidos that exist, which one relies the least on familiarity with those roots and would be the easiest to learn for an native arabic or chinese speaker for example ?

So first which one(s) allow you to derive the most sentences by knowing the least amount of rules ?

Then, which one(s) would be the least difficult to pronounce for the greater majority of human beings ? (I guess this one is a hard one)

1
  • Your question cannot be answered. Some parts of it do not really make that much sense in the context of a human language, like the "derive the most sentences knowing the least amount of rules". You speak of esperantidoj but fail to provide the list of languages you are considering, and seem not to take into account that roots are just a part of the language, the way you play with them is arguably more important in the overall structure. I'd suggest you try to substitute "esperantidoj" with "English" (or any other language for that matter) in your question and see what you can come up with. Oct 17 at 15:19
1

I probably don't know all Esperanto-derived languages (Esperantidoj) and their properties, nor would I — even if I knew them — be able to assess how easy or difficult they are to acquire for speakers of (only) non-European languages.

Nonetheless, I'll try to give a partial answer:

Of the ones I know (in the sense of "know of their existence", not necessarily of "know how to use them" or "know all their properties"), I guess that Toki Pona would be easiest to pronounce and understand ("unterstand" in the sense of mapping sounds to phonemes, not necessarily understanding what they mean) by the widest group of people from various language backgrounds, because it has a very reduced inventory of sounds, AFAIK deliberately designed to not contain any two sounds that speakers of various languages or language families cannot easily distinguish.

Of course, it's a bit questionably whether Toki Pona should be considered an "Esperantido" at all. While it draws parts of its vocabulary from Esperanto, just like Esperanto draws parts of its own vocabulary from, say, German, and while Toki Pona's design principles may have been inspired by some properties of Esperanto, it's a decidedly different language, not just a "reformed Esperanto" like e.g. Ido.

2
  • 1
    Is Toki Pona really considered an Esperanto-derived language? It only uses some Esperanto roots, that's about it, as far as I know. Nothing else seems to be related to Esperanto (grammar, syntax, word order, tenses, ...). Oct 17 at 23:58
  • Good point @EduardoTrápani, and actually one I wanted to include in the answer, but forgot about while composing it. I've now added a paragraph about that consideration.
    – das-g
    Oct 18 at 21:37
1

The Esperantidos have considerable smaller communities. The Ido is probably the only viable possibility. I would not exclude Esperanto itself. I would also look to other alternatives, though I think Interlingua not matching your criteria.

Some of the "linguistic" points.

  • [Esperanto/Ido] Esperanto's disadvantage of extra accents. They were cleverly chosen (ĝeneraka, ĵurnalisto). People like accents in their language. Even in English one sees loan words like façade, naïve.
  • Phonetic gamma. Esperanto does not do well for all letters to be pronounceable internationally. However I find it good to have rare pronunciations, like in eĥo. And I miss the û (?) in München [de], début [fr], zuur [nl].
  • [E-o/Interlingua] Word stems from several languages and disambiguation (no homonyms) play havoc with recognisability.
  • [Ido/Esperanto] The accusative of E-o is not easy. The verb tenses, and Idos shorter forms including esas for estas is mentionable.
  • Esperanto and Ido remain far superior as international language. Being learnable by child and elder, by less intelligent or for instance visually impaired persons.

Personally I favor Esperanto, but am not opposed to Ido (the minority language). Both have a sibling relationship today.

Both are easy.

For Esperanto the technical means exist for the special letters and Ido has less speakers. Idists are friendlier, more welcoming.

So first which one(s) allow you to derive the most sentences by knowing the least amount of rules?

Not much difference between E-o (minus for accusative) and Ido (a minus for some naturalistic embellishments).

Then, which one(s) would be the least difficult to pronounce for the greater majority of human beings ? (I guess this one is a hard one)

No difference either, though Ido is not as strict as E-o.

My conclusion: avoid "better" Esperantidos, go with Ido. Personally I would even chose Esperanto, as I do not see Ido surpass Esperanto. (I would not be disappointed if it would.) A reform wish for some perfectness should not hinder realism.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.