Aiola differs from Esperanto in the following ways: Phonetics: Aiola uses no superscripted letters which has proven to be the least favorable feature of Esperanto. Also, Aiola has distinct letters names; Esperanto does not. Lexicon: 1. The majority of Aiola's vocabulary is more familiar than Esperanto's vocabulary (to speakers of Romance languages). For example the Esperanto word for 'abbreviate' is 'mallongigi' - hardly recognizeable. The Aiola word for 'abbreviate' is 'abreviyare' - recognizeable to speakers of French, Italian, Spanish, Protuguese,English etc. We have encountered many other examples of this kind. 2.Requisite to understanding spoken speech is the listenerís ability to determine when one word ends and another begins. Aiola makes this task considerably easier for its speakers by presenting a corpus of words that do not pose any confusion to the determination of word boundaries. Esperanto does not. In Esperanto many words break up into possible Esperanto words making comprehension harder for the listener. Morphology: 1. Word endings in Aiola denote only the meaning indicated by the part of speech (e.g. noun, verb, adjective, etc). Additional meanings (utility, provision, cause, similarity, etc) must be indicated by an affix. Esperanto uses word endings to signify all of these which leaves a single word open to more than one interpretation. 2.To resolve semantic ambiguities which arise in existing natural and artificial languages due to multiple meanings of affixes and word endings, Aiola uses affixes which have only one specific meaning. In Esperanto this is not true. Many affixes have more than one meaning. An example would be their suffix -um which is described to have a variety of meanings. Semantics: In Aiola most words have one literal meaning. In Esperanto, many words have more than one meaning.