Jens S. Larsen skribis:

> It's a bit dangerous to speak of "the past century" during this year

No it isn't. If I spoke of the past century in 1950, for example, it
would be in reference to the preceding one hundred, not fifty, years.

> Deliberate change of the language, that is.  There's an infinite
> number of possible languages fit for Esperanto's role, but generally
> people don't see why Esperanto as it is couldn't be one of them, so
> despite the organizational disunity, there's no sign of the language
> itself splitting up, or of any rival `auxlang' going to take over the
> scene.  Changing the organization is no taboo, but talking about that
> just bores people, whereas talking about ditching Esperanto infuriates
> them.

You're begging the question when you speak of "Esperanto's role".
I know you're a true believer, Jens, but in any event there are many
others than myself who will strongly disagree with you that "la lingvo
ne gravas" and that all languages are equally appropriate as IALs. It's
not altogether clear to whom you're referring by "people" - you speak
as if everyone were already an Esperantist, while this isn't the case.
I can agree with you that people generally aren't aware of linguistic
faults possibly disqualifying Esperanto as the main world IAL. This
doesn't imply, however, that they don't often discover such faults
on becoming personally acquainted with the language.

> If you want to eliminate the problem before Unicode does it,
> you'll have to be quick.

Unicode is in no way going to "eliminate" the problems occasioned by
Esperanto's diacritics. I won't dispute that it's going to alleviate them
to some degree, but they will remain an inconvenience in any immediately
foreseeable future. They won't appear on ordinarily used keyboards, for
instance. You'll be able to use them with some fonts but not with others.
Your VCR won't display them. You'll have to figure out how to get them
into your documents, and specially code them in your Web pages. Etc. etc.