>>6649813After informing myself about Esperanto, I can understand your point a little bit.
Languages are also tied to culture and are prone to be changed by their speakers, either because it is by a natural process, or because some people try to change it due to thinking they can improve it.
But ultimately, the main purpose of a language is to help communication. Esperanto, for better or for worse, is a very niche language that would help you communicate with a very small group of people. Hence, the reason one of their fundamental rules for Esperanto was:
"Esperanto is a neutral language. It is not supposed to replace all languages, only to 'give to people of different nations the ability to understand each other'".
I get it, Esperanto is incredibly easy to understand and you could probably have tons of people learning Esperanto, but I believe it would need to have a lot more people being interested in learning something niche as of right now or governments worldwide going out of their way to teach it for it to have a chance of being taught massively.
Especially because translators exist. Most of the time, they are an easy way for people to not see the need to learn a new language. If someone can translate something into my native language, why would I need to learn about it? That's the mentality many have about non-native languages.
And the existence of the English language, one that's used worldwide by a larger margin of people, is also a huge obstacle for the implementation of a language like that.
So yeah, I stand by what I said, but I get your logic to a certain degree.
