Talk:Esperanto

UEA members in new map - individual or total?

@Kwamikagami: Does the new Esperantujo map count only the individual UEA members per country, or does it include the members of member organisations as well? TucanHolmes (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@TucanHolmes: No, it's just UEA membership. That was the only ref for the old map. If you show me how I can access the numbers for the member organizations, I'd love to adjust the map to reflect them. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I sadly don't know either, but I will adjust the map caption to avoid any confusion. Thank you for updating the map! TucanHolmes (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This section reads as a duolingo advertisement

This whole page needs to be redone as it reads as a duolingo advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.209.194 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Duolingo was a huge boost for the language, and really revitalised it with a broader, more casual audience, so the emphasis is (IMHO) justified. Could you be a bit more specific about which paragraphs/sentences have what issues from your point of view? TucanHolmes (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I also think the amount of detail devoted to Duolingo seems to be excessive. I think it is worth mentioning that Duolingo teachs Esperanto, but blow by blows of user numbers and which base language it supports does not seem to be notable and smacks of WP:RECENT Ashmoo (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the word order of Esperanto

Hello everyone!

I'm writing this up to get a consensus here before editing the article. At the time of writing, the most recent "Offciala Informo (warning: it's in Esperanto)" (Official Information) from the Akademio de Esperanto (basically an Esperanto version of the Académie française but not as controversial) is actually on the word order of Esperanto, and it states that "topic → comment" is the correct word order. As far as I can tell, this doesn't make a significant difference to the content already there (if anything, it confirms it), but I just wanted to make sure before adding it. Thoughts?

— MeasureWell (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, and the fact that the source is in another language isn't particularly a problem AFAIK. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

use in philosophy

I cut this from the Eo vocab article as being off topic. Not sure where it belongs, or if it's notable enough to include at all:

Esperanto has been used to discuss philosophical concepts by at least one author in the UK.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO it isn't particularly notable except as a counterexample to people who, not having checked what Esperanto actually is, and in particular how it builds words and sentences, assert that it is "a mere code, unfit for serious discussion". In fact, Esperanto is a language just as any language, and I can express in Esperanto anything I can say in my native language, sometimes even more easily thanks to its rich word-making power. — Tonymec (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Common Phrases being innacurate

i'll start with Ni Amos, no esperantist i've spoken to has heard of this, it's translated counterpart dosen't make sense, who would you say this to? the closest that would make sense would be "Ni Faros Amo" which translates as "We will make love". also "Ĝis la revido" is not Goodbye it's "See you later" (only in formal translation the litteral is "Until the Later") "adiaŭ" is goodbye a Rookie editor of This Emporium of Knowledge, SirColdcrown (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)