Opinion: Why I Love Esperanto!


October 30, 2024 - Published

Esperanto is a language that was constructed by L. L. Zamenhof in 1887 in order to unite the world for world peace! While that obviously hasn't happened, this language has fascinated me over the past year in a way that I haven't expected at all. Partly because I was introduced to conlangs largely from jan Misali, I also shared most of his opinions regarding auxlangs -- the international auxiliary language should be something that's simple and universal. While Esperanto has some of these elements, it's largely agreed to not be very satisfactory under these conditions in the current world.

However, while I've grown a larger appreciation for it over time, I've seen others pile on their distaste and sometimes even hatred for the language, both inside and outside the conlang community. While I understand there are matters of taste, I wanted to combat some common beliefs and talk about why I think Esperanto is great!

Isn't Esperanto a dead language? A failed project?

If we're going solely by the purest original goal of Esperanto, which was to be a language that's spoken by everyone across the entire world to unite them in harmony, then yes, it "failed," but not even English holds that title -- no language does. It was definitely an overly ambitious project, but in my opinion, that's part of what makes it so appealing. What did it end up achieving?

For one, it did end up essentially being the easiest language to learn of its time. This is a great achievement, as the last big auxlang was Volapük, whose greatest impact on the world's culture was persisting as a term for "nonsense" in languages like Danish. While Esperanto wasn't "universal" in the sense that everyone knew the language, it was arguably "universal" in that speakers were worldwide and not tied down to a single culture. It also gained a large number of speakers over its lifetime, which is cited to be anywhere from 30,000 to 2,000,000 speakers. I imagine getting the number of speakers of a language is already difficult, but even moreso when it's not even tied to a specific country!

Either way, this not only makes it leagues above any other constructed language (whether made to be an international language or just happens to be from a widely popular piece of media), but also makes it comparable to some real natural languages, despite being made and popularized before the Internet. This is why, despite often being cited as one, Esperanto is NOT a dead language. According to estimates, Yiddish has less than 2 million speakers. Navajo has less than 300,000. Hawaiian, less than 30,000. Yes, there are external reasons for these, and they are all considered endangered, but these are all languages that are well-known and have had profound effects on the world, undeniably not "dead."

Esperanto is most likely seen as a failure not because it was much of a failure at all, but just because it set its sights so high. It actually has had a lot of cultural impact in many countries, just not one that many modern people might be able to see.

Isn't Esperanto Eurocentric?

This is something I hear way too often. First of all, "Eurocentric" doesn't just mean "it's a language focused on European languages." It's a specific term that refers to the view that Europe is the central and superior culture to all other cultures. Does Esperanto ever claim to be a superior language? Does it ever seek to replace any other language? Did the creator have racist or colonialist undertones in any of his works? No, no to all of these!!! You can read these all yourself and form your own opinion! 

Esperanto was made to be a secondary language for people to learn alongside their existing languages, not to replace them. It also happened to be mainly European probably because Zamenhof happened to be born in Europe. I'm not going to be doing research about how difficult it was to learn non-European languages in Europe in the 19th century since that's way out of scope for this article, but I think it's a pretty safe bet. After all, the dude wasn't a slacker -- he knew 13 different languages, all of which influenced Esperanto. I also think people underestimate how long ago the language was made.

Esperanto PREDATES the first airplane flight.

I would like to ask everyone how exactly this eye doctor was supposed to obtain reliable learning material for languages all over the world before commercial flights and the internet existed. Was it possible? Probably. Realistic? I really doubt it. I don't think it's fair at all to just say that Esperanto is Eurocentric.

I do agree with the sentiment that the ideal auxlang would not be based solely on European languages; I just think it's perfectly understandable that it wouldn't have been made in 1887. It's also worth noting that even if Esperanto took off, I don't think most people would actually have many issues with a European-based language being the world-wide language. There is a large population of Esperanto speakers in China and other East Asian countries -- certainly more, but that's just one area that's well-documented.

OK, but why do YOU like it?

There's a lot I have to like about Esperanto itself. It's a bit quirky, but its rules are very consistent, and I think it sounds very nice when spoken. The unique letters, while I disliked them at first, gives it an immediately recognizable identity that's rather rare in languages.

But there's one reason that I think the language has stuck around, and the real reason I've grown fond of it: Zamenhof himself.

Esperanto was created at a time when no single language was truly the most dominant in the world. Constructed languages had never really taken off, and Zamenhof's dreams of creating a universal language wasn't just a dream, but looked possible. His pursuits of uniting people was rooted in reality, after seeing firsthand how differing languages would divide people.

Nowadays, you don't really see that anymore. Auxlangs made to replace English aren't seen as realistic anymore, and even though there are many well-meaning creators, I'll see some languages that are created by people who are actually blatantly racist, or worse!

Zamenhof's pure-hearted and optimistic idealism is something that lives through Esperanto even today, and I could never hate it for that. The language isn't perfect, and I wouldn't even consider it a top 3 contender for the most ideal auxlang, but every time someone speaks Esperanto today, it's a way of carrying on his hope over 100 years into the future.

If anyone asks, my opinions about the ideal auxlang have changed a bit since I first discovered Esperanto. I go over it in detail here, but in summary I personally prefer simplicity/consistency first and universality second, due to practicality. My current top 3 contenders above Esperanto are probably Globasa, Elefen, and Mini-Linga, but there are many others that I would probably consider if I spent the time to study them (Lingwa de Planeta is up there, I just haven't felt the need to study another worldlang lol).