Most people I know despise Esperanto, but largely for daft reasons - "Everyone speaks English nowadays anyway", "It sounds a bit foreign", "It has no cultural identity of its own", etc. I, on the other hand, dislike it for being:
* Just good enough to inspire anti-revisionist fanaticism!
* Just bad enough to strike the general public as risible!
* Easily improvable enough to inspire constant half-baked "reforms" whose inventors argue amongst themselves!
An optimally designed world auxiliary language would be
1. Clear - i.e. all its rules would be explicitly established, so users can filter out an utterance's ungrammatical parsings.
2. Simple - involving a minimum of grammatical complexity (e.g. irregular forms, fancy inflections or arbitrary categories like "feminine").
3. International - as learnable for Tamils, Koreans or Zulus as for the Europeans who already have so many advantages.
4. Elegant - largely subjective; striking potential speakers as being notably easy to pronounce and natural to use.
My contention is that Esperanto contrariwise is
1. Obscure - full of assumed rules and unadvertised usages.
2. Complex - with cases, adjectival concord, subjunctives etc.
3. Parochial - designed to appeal primarily to Europeans.
4. Clumsy - full of hard sounds, odd letters and absurd words.
It looks like some sort of wind-up-toy Czech/Italian pidgin. And if there's one part of this world that doesn't need a local pidgin, it's Europe, which not only has (at a guess) the world's highest concentration of professional polyglots, but is also the home of the current global lingua franca: English.
[далее 15 экранов текста]