Esperanto is not my favourite artificial language (2002)
For those interested in languages... After studying Chinese (Mandarin), Esperanto has always struck me as being not all that great for a constructed language.  Chinese is somewhat remarkable in that if you ignore the logographic writing system and tone-based pronunciation, the grammar is remarkably simple and clear.  No grammatical gender, no conjugation, particles instead of prefixes&#x2F;suffixes for basically everything important - you can pick up the basic rules in a couple days.  Interlingua is (by design) much closer to this simplicity in a Western-based language.<p>Some Chinese examples for fun (hoping HN supports Unicode)...<p>To make something plural, you just add 们.  I&#x2F;me is 我, so we&#x2F;us is 我们.  He&#x2F;him is 他, so they&#x2F;them is 他们.  No need for separate base words - learn the normal nouns&#x2F;pronouns and one particle and you&#x27;re done.<p>Same concept for possessive, you just add 的.  Using the above, my is 我的.  His is 他的.  Their is 他们的.  Easy.<p>Want past tense?  Don&#x27;t mess with the base words; again just add a particle, in this case 了.  Go is 去 so went is 去了.  Eat is 吃 so ate is 吃了.  Easy.  Learn the verb once and it never changes.<p>Forms of &quot;to be&quot; are similarly simple - the base words again don&#x27;t change, you just add the &quot;to be&quot; word you want and get on with your life.  Want to say &quot;I am American&quot;?  America = 美国 and person is 人, so American is literally &quot;America person&quot; 美国人. Am for non-adjectives is 是.  &quot;I am American&quot; = 我是美国人.  &quot;We are American&quot; = 我们是美国人.  Easy.  Compare this to something like Italian, where &quot;I am American&quot; = Sono americano, but &quot;We are American&quot; = Noi siamo americani.  Absurd in comparison.