Changes

Another criticism relates to the use of the accented letters Ĉ, Ĝ, Ĥ, Ĵ, Ŝ, and Ŭ. Several of these are unique to Esperanto and until the advent of [[Unicode]], computer users needed to install special fonts. Zamenhof suggested the use of ch, gh, hh, jh, sh and u, when no suitable typeface was available. Another common work-around is to use cx, gx etc; this has the advantage that X (along with Q, W and Y) are not used in Esperanto words.

Another criticism relates to the use of the accented letters Ĉ, Ĝ, Ĥ, Ĵ, Ŝ, and Ŭ. Several of these are unique to Esperanto and until the advent of [[Unicode]], computer users needed to install special fonts. Zamenhof suggested the use of ch, gh, hh, jh, sh and u, when no suitable typeface was available. Another common work-around is to use cx, gx etc; this has the advantage that X (along with Q, W and Y) are not used in Esperanto words.

Furthermore, many linguists criticized Esperanto for combining elements of only proto-European languages. Asiatic languages were largely ignored in creating the language, making it exceptionally difficult for native speakers of such languages to learn Esperanto.

Furthermore, many linguists criticized Esperanto for combining elements of only [[Indo-European]] languages. Asiatic languages were largely ignored in creating the language, making it exceptionally difficult for native speakers of such languages to learn Esperanto.

Many speakers of Esperanto take a conservative view of proposals to change the language. They point out that arguments over the language have led to splits, most notably the creation of [[Ido]]. Despite these strong opinions, some changes such as the addition of extra affixes, have been accepted.

Many speakers of Esperanto take a conservative view of proposals to change the language. They point out that arguments over the language have led to splits, most notably the creation of [[Ido]]. Despite these strong opinions, some changes such as the addition of extra affixes, have been accepted.