Talk:Esperanto II

Why does this need an article? Esperanto reforms are a dime a dozen. If it has any notability, it could go to the author's page. The most notable change is the one to the orthography that changes the exact things everyone else has? If this page needs to exist, the sample is less than useful; it's long, clunky, and doesn't show off the features of the languages. There's a reason why the Lord's Prayer is used; it's short, broken up into short phrases, and can quite likely be followed by the reader. While there's certainly reasons to not use the Lord's Prayer, a long scholarly (boring) text that the readers have to know Esperanto and wade through to get anything from is not useful.--Prosfilaes 00:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly care for or against, but as a 3rd party opinion, I'd suggest putting it on a page specifically for Esperanto reforms and redirecting there. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  08:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's notable as the final proposal by Saussure. It's more that an orthographic reform: many of the grammatical words and inflections are changed as well. Hopefully the passage highlights that better now. kwami (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with OP on the relative value of the sample. If some editors find the Lord's Prayer objectionable, all that current wet bureaucratic sand can be replaced with a passage from Shakespeare, or a folk song, or a well-known poem. Something brief and familiar, possibly in parallel with the original English. The giant block of unfamiliar text that's there now is, as OP said in 2007, all but useless, particularly to non-Esperantists. Laodah 19:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Esperanto 2: electric boogaloo
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.22.26 (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)