Comments on: World’s Easiest Language

By: transubstantiation

transubstantiation — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:17:13 +0000

By: shearzar

shearzar — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 06:39:39 +0000

Wow, I forgot about making a post here. Well, after checking out the conlang called Fasile, I’m convinced that it is a hoax and have changed my mind about Esperanto and Ido. I do think Ido is easier to learn and speak than Esperanto, but I think I’ve grown to like Esperanto best because of its “strangeness”

By: transubstantiation

transubstantiation — Sat, 02 May 2009 11:01:31 +0000

“Ido… is better than Esperanto”

How? Qualify, please…

By: shearzar

shearzar — Sat, 02 May 2009 07:30:23 +0000

My native language is American English. After seriously studying Glosa, Esperanto, Ido (which is better than Esperanto), Novial, Atlango, Nordien, Ceqli, and others, I’ve concluded that none of them are for me. Romanian, Indonesian, and Persian are supposed to be simple for native speakers of English, too. However, since my paternal heritage is German and I want to learn another Germanic language, I am drawn to Afrikaans and Norwegian. Afrikaans is easier to learn than Esperanto! Afrikaans speakers can easily understand Dutch! Norwegians can understand much of Dutch and Swedish, but they have a bad habit of interrupting native English speakers who try to speak Norwegian and insist they speak English. That’s no fun. Afrikaans speakers encourage people to practice their Afrikaans, including younger generation non-whites who don’t see it as the language of the suppressors. It’s more guttural than I like, but I’m favoring Afrikaans because of its very simple grammar and fascinating history. 13 million Afrikaans speakers + 27 million Dutch speakers = 40 million. I doubt there are even one million Esperantists. Regardless, according to liberal statistics, Esperanto has less speakers than does Indian Sign Language (2.7 million). That’s funny. Even at 2 million speakers, Esperanto is spoken by fewer people than 180 other languages. Afrikaans and Dutch are ranked 100 and 37, respectfully.

By: transubstantiation

transubstantiation — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 08:51:27 +0000

Interesting…

By: Urszula Nikiciuk

Urszula Nikiciuk — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:16:13 +0000

I think efficiency is not synonymous with ease of grasping a particular language. English became widespread for some reasons, but there are a lot of people who deem this language very difficult to learn. Yet, they struggle to learn it because it’s become a must if they want to succeed in the contemporary society.

We should also note that despite the fact that a great number of people declare they speak this language, the quality of the English some people speak trembles on the verge of comprehensibility

Thank you for all the information about Esperanto, it is very interesting. I was born in the very same city as this language, but to be honest, Esperanto is not particularly worshipped there=)

By: transubstantiation

transubstantiation — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:51:26 +0000

Definitely!

By: Dr Randi Lou

Dr Randi Lou — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:47:57 +0000

Easy depends on your frame of reference; if your background is from a romance or germanic language will have a distinct difference from slavic or asian or mid-eastern language.

By: transubstantiation

transubstantiation — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:31:18 +0000

I get your point but actually Cyrillic is not difficult at all.

By: blattdorf

blattdorf — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:30:36 +0000

It’s also important to make the distinction whether it is easy to learn how to write and speak a given language. By writing I mean using a different alphabet than ours, like Chinese or Japanese. Japanese isn’t an especially complicated language (except for the numbering system, what were they thinking?) if you use the latin alphabet. But if you wanted to learn how to write in Japanese, well, good luck!

On the other hand, Russian may be hard to learn in writing, even though most Poles can sort of make out what the Russians are saying.