🚀 go-pugleaf

> I will certainly concede Esperanto's tendency towards literal meanings can
> cause loss of some very subtle distinctions.  E.g. `damp' and `moist' both
> translate to `malseketa'; `beautiful' and `handsome' both become `bela'.

Actually, damp would typically be translated as humida, and moist as malseketa.
 Similarly, a better translation of handsome is probably bonaspekta or possibly
belaspekta.  There is plenty of nuance available in Esperanto.

When I first lived in Italy I thought Italian was an impoverished language
because there were lots of things I could say in English that I couldn't say in
Italian.  Guess where the real fault turned out to lie....

On the cultural issues, I agree completely.  The cultural value of learning
Esperanto is very high.  I posted a longer note on this topic to
ext.in.esperanto.

Bruce Sherwood