So?CrazyEttin wrote:It uses both word order and case marking for marking arguments, for starters,
This may be true, but I doubt holes in the grammar defaulting to SAE were about assumptions of it being "right" rather than it being just default assumed to be default. Unless someone channels Zamenhof, we can't know.and the original grammar isn’t even complete even though it claims to be, in many parts it assumes the reader knows a SAE language and thinks the way SAE langs do stuff is the "right" way.
Guess I'll have to read said article to see how it fails in every way.Someone wrote an excellent text, Ranto, describing in detail how it fails in every way:
Edit: Looked at your link; hardly seems a balanced critique rather than a Limbaughesque rant aimed at those already primed to diss Esperanto.
If Esperanto asks to be excused of anything, I'd rather hear it from those who actually speak it fluently or 2G speakers, who have the power and inclination to move it forward. While Zamenhof may have been defined by time and place, he also had the advantage of not being inundated by the web and naysayers who would tell him why his idea or parts thereof sucked each and every step of the way. What IAL since has been proposed that doesn't have a retenue of critics describing in detail how it fails in every way (hence, never getting off the ground)?some of it can be excused by its time and place, i guess, like eurocentrism, but not all of it.
![[+1]](./images/smilies/plusone.png "+1"){kind=small}
![[:P]](./images/smilies/icon_razz2.png ":P"){kind=icon}
![[;)]](./images/smilies/icon_wink2.png ";)"){kind=icon}
