Esperantists are smug as fuck

Smug bastards. Seriously your little shitty conlang isn't the epitome of efficiency or perfection or logic. Do everyone a favor and learn a REAL language, a language spoken by more than twenty people. While you converse awkwardly with your neckbearded fellow "esperantists" in an Esperanto convention somewhere in Lapland, real men are fucking their hot Italian girlfriends who were charmed by their Italian skills.

No one takes that language seriously do they?

...Lapland?

Also: Esperantists aren't anywhere near as bad as Lojbanists.

>>3
Sure they are. Esperantists are to Pythonistas as Lojbanistanis are to Lispers. The latter, at least, have glommed on to a legitimately interesting language. Klingon speakers are Brainfuck.

There can be more to a conlang than just speaking with many people. The number of speakers most matters to those conlangs which seek to substitute English, like Esperanto. But not so to the likes of Lojban. With Lojban you can think to yourself neutrally, unambiguously, and creatively, which doesn't require a mega speaking community. And in the end it's remarkably well-built and versatile. It deserves more linguistic attention.

>>5
Oh yeah, you reminded me that "lojbanists" are usually even worse than "esperantists."

>>6

In what way, exactly?

>>6
'Sup, Esperantard? How's your fake romance language working out for you?

>>8
I think you're trying to troll the wrong person

>>9
He thinks I'm trolling.

>>10
I think I'm trolling

>>11
Shows what you know!

Esperanto is a dogshit language.

It's really only going to work well if you already speak a western language.  Eurolangs show tense through conjugation, and number through declination.  That's not true of ALL languages.  Some use verbs to show deference -- there are different words for eating if you are high rank than if you are low rank. 

Personally if I were to make my own interlang, I'd try to make an isolating language.  Everything would be described by adding particles.  I'd try to find the most commonly used word for everything based on the population of speakers, not based on one language.

>>13
Everything would be described by adding particles.
That strikes me as the way to go.

I'd try to find the most commonly used word for everything based on the population of speakers, not based on one language.
'Sup, lojban? But that's pretty much what I'd do as well.

>>13
>Everything would be described by adding particles.

That's pretty much how people say things in Lojban. Here is a comparison:

I am eat-ing.

Mi est-as mangx-ant-a. (Esperanto)

mi ca ca'o citka (Lojban)

Indication of tense is mandatory in Esperanto, but not in Lojban:

Mi est-as mangx- -a. [invalid]
Mi est- mangx-ant-a. [invalid]
Mi est- mangx- -a. [invalid]

mi ca citka [valid]
mi ca'o citka [valid]
mi citka [valid]

Notice also that the Lojban content words, unlike Esperanto's, are not morphologically divided according to "verb", "adjective", and "adverb". Compare the following:

You are sad. (English: copula + adjective)

Vi estas malfelicxa. (Esperanto: copula + adjective)

Anata-wa kanasimu. (Japanese: verb)

do badri (Lojban: pure predicate)

One may paraphrase the Esperanto as Vi malfelicxas. (verb) to accommodate the Japanese viewpoint, but then that would conflict with the English, which takes on an adjective.

>I'd try to find the most commonly used word for everything based on the population of speakers, not based on one language.

Again, that's exactly what they did for Lojban.

I'm not as familiar with Lobjan as I am with Esperanto.  I may need to look into it.

http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/reactions.htm

http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/europeanorasiatic.htm

and much more here:

http://claudepiron.free.fr/articles.htm

Esperanto? More like desperanto.

Think about it.