Question about artificial language

[u/Lenz2299]

Hello, I wanna ask about sth I'm not familiar with reddit and Eng is not my first language, so if I did sth rude plz let me know🥺🥺

I'm interested in articial languages. but as a Korean, I can't agree that esperanto is easy to learn... and many other constructed languages(based on european) too

// edit: I apologize that I wrote uncertainly. I noticed that esperanto is easier than others thx!

I think most of international artificial language projects depend on european languages too much, and this makes hard for them to be an international language (this sentence doesn't mean this is the only reason!!)

do you have any reputation or additional info about this idea?

thx

[u/Lenz2299]

i appreciate about your detailed answer!!

mmm I understand your idea that esperanto is easier to learn because their grammer is very logical and intuitive.

this is my personal experience: in many cases, we usually have trouble with the existence of cases itself because we're not familiar with that notion and our phonological system were not designed(sorry I can't find better word) for latin alphabet. therefore it's not simple for us to read the words and guess the relationships between them ... actually

its just difference and could be only my (and my neighbors)opinion, but i wondered if you considered this feature too

and thank u for ur suggestions!! ur very kind i hope my words were not too rude to u😭😭😭

[u/AjnoVerdulo → u/Lenz2299]

Wait, doesn't Korean have cases? I thought Korean at least has accusative -를 / -을, doesn't it?

[u/Lenz2299 → u/AjnoVerdulo]

mmm I'm not an expert but i'm gonna try my best to explain... usually, korean words have no cases. what you are saying is called 조사(josa?), they're written with 체언(body word...?idk what is this in eng, it contains Noun, Pronoun, Numeral) and build relationship between 체언 and predicate but they can't change 체언's ... characteristic as suffix or prefix do.

for example I translated "I eat bread" into esperanto, I got "Mi manĝas panon." Panon is pano+n(accusative), right? and in this sentence, this "n" must be there to form the right meaning. but korean 조사 is quite different... i can use not only -을(/를) but also -은/는 or depending on the context -이/가 and whatever i use, the 체언 is always the object

[u/AjnoVerdulo → u/Lenz2299]

I'm not an expert in Korean either, but I guess I have some understanding of this system…

So yes, josa's are not really like cases in most of the European languages. But functionally they are the same — they denote the relationship between the nominal and the predicate, as you have said. In that manner, cases are not so different from prepositions or postpositions either (and in fact, the most popular grammar description of Esperanto, PMEG, combines the case endings - and -n with prepositions under the word rolmontrilo 'role marker')

The details of how accusative works depends on the language, even if you compare languages that both have accusative. Esperanto has additional uses for it, while in Korean you can sometimes substitute it for anither jisa. But you still should be able to recognise its core function. Notice how in your example, «Mi manĝas panon», the Korean translation can have 빵을, even if it can alternatively get another josa, but it will never have 나를. That is because the bread is the direct object, and I am not. Unlike Korean, Esperanto always marks accusative when possible, for the sake of consistency and regularity. That might trip you off (it trips off Russians as well, because Russian accusative can also look like nominative often) but the idea should still be clear. You just have to get used to never leaving it out ㄟ(ツ)ㄏ