Je 08.27 atm 2007.01.07, Dave MacLEOD skribis

>The reason why Japanese isn't a good candidate is because Japan
>unified their language too early and there really isn't any need for a
>language based on theirs. If Japan had stayed divided and Korea as
>three or four countries, we'd have maybe up to a dozen separate
>countries today and a language based on their common attributes would
>have been a good idea. That's what they get for unifying their
>countries so quickly.

I suspect that you mean "standardized" rather than "unified". There 
are still various dialects of Japanese in use, apparently. Back in 
the eighties a Japanese linguist named Tatsuo (I forget his family 
name) visited Berkeley, and used to hang out with what was then the 
Berkeley Esperanto League (later: League of East Bay Esperanto 
Speakers). (*) One of his proud possessions that he showed us was a 
collection of maps showing the variation of different words throughout Japan.


(*) Tatsuo had studied Esperanto back in the fifties, but had 
considered it only a minor hobby. In the early eighties he was sent 
for a while to the Foreign Language Institute in Beijing, where he 
discovered -- to his astonishment -- that he found it easier to 
communicate, generally speaking, in Esperanto than in either English 
or Japanese. After that, he was a convert.

Opinions (in English):
Esperanto (in English):
Literaturo (Esperante):