Is the invention of Esperanto is a mistake?

Question

the inventor seems failed to foresee the riseup of English language. Today, English is a very successful international language. But for Esperanto, its usage is decreasing.

I think Esperanto will soon prove to be a mistake by some language scientist. Man-made language has no soul,no blood, it will not last long.

Do u agree?

Answer 1

No and no.

Don't spread stupid prejudices!

Learn esperanto!

Answer 2

When Esperanto was introduced, 1887, literacy in any language was still a privilege of only the rich. Until quite recently, French was considered the international language of diplomacy.
One of Zamenhof's goals in creating the basis of the language was to enable the "common man" who didn't have the time and money needed to learn a second language to learn an auxiliary language for international communication. When people say Esperanto is a "neutral" language, they are referring to its political neutrality as opposed to grammatical, lexical, syntactical or whatever else type of neutrality. Zamenhof felt this political neutrality (no person or country, not even its creator owns or controls the language) would help give its speakers a sense of equality with any other speakers of the language.
English used as an international language is not the success that many people seem to think if by "success" you mean ease of use and understanding without the need for long and expensive hours of study, translations and interpreters. What tends to happen is that the best linguists get hired to do jobs not the most qualified to do the job. (If the job is English language, of course, that point is moot.) :-)
Esperanto usage is increasing mostly fuelled by the Internet and interest by young people. Membership in the Universala Esperanto Asocio (World Esperanto Association) has been increasing in recent years.
As for Esperanto having "no soul, no blood", it's been my experience as an Esperanto speaker for a little over six years that it has just as much (if not more) "soul and blood" and humour and spontaneity and everything else that any national language has. But, of course, if you don't know the language, you'll have to take my word for it. :-)

Answer 3

I don't think it's a "mistake," per se. I don't think that it can achieve its goal of becoming an international language, simply because not enough people get enough of a benefit from learning it and using it. I think it's really interesting, and fascinating that someone can actually invent a language (I wish I had the time and the will!), and a lot of people enjoy learning it.

As far as English being an international language, that's not necessarily true, but there have been many languages that have enjoyed the same status in the past: Spanish, French, and Latin, for example. This is just because of the political and economic power demonstrated by English speaking nations (or Spain or France or Rome, when each of those languages were considered as crucial to learn as English is today), for better or for worse--not for the same reasons that Esperanto was created to be an international language.

The purposes of English and Esperanto are entirely different, though, so I don't really think it's fair to compare them. Though I think it's an interesting idea created with very good intentions, I don't get much benefit from Esperanto because it is devoid of culture and so, for me, devoid of much value.

Answer 4

For your information, the two official languages spoken in Norway, Bokmål and Nynorsk, are artificial. So are Indonesian and Malay.
Esperanto is not a mistake.
Of course Zamenhoff could not have know about English becoming this important.
Maybe you are a native English speaker. And I have a disadvantage here. I had to learn YOUR language. If you wanted to do business with me.. would you make the effort to learn Spanish? Of course not. That's why you are happy thinking English is the best language to be chosen as "international".

Answer 5

Esperanto has several advantages over English. Much smaller vocabulary, far fewer grammatical rules, no irregularities etc. So far it has over one million speakers. It has lasted for decades, and while it may be no more than a linguistic curiosity, it is the obvious choice for an easy to learn, completely neutral language.

Answer 6

Table Tiger,

Aren't all languages man-made?
Am I missing something here?

One cannot call Esperanto a mistake
simply because it is not being used
to somebody's expectations.

Even if only two people in the world
used Esperanto, then it is most
definitely needed, and thus, successful.

So it is!

Answer 7

Not really a mistake, but maybe a misguided attempt to unite the world linguistically. Learning ANY language is going to take effort, and most people just aren't willing to put in that effort. Especially if its a language only a few people use.

It may not be the powerful took to unite mankind it was intended to be, but I certainly wouldn't call it a mistake!

Answer 8

I think that a man made language is the only choice we have for creating an international community that won't seem like forcing one culture on another. English is all well and good, but it reeks of modern day imperialism to expect all people to speak it.

Answer 9

Yes. I agree with you. There are enough languages in the world as it is without creating more.

Furthermore, I don't see Esperanto as neutral. It might seem 'neutral' to a speaker of a European language, especially Spanish, because that's where many of the words came from. But it bears no relationship to non-European languages, for example, Chinese.

Answer 10

I think learning English has really taken its place. I cannot bring myself to learn artificial language; culture, history, and background give a language its soul.