English, as an national language, is great for national communication.
But using national language for international communication is like using black-white television to watch a color movie - it kind of works, but it definitely loses a lot.
There are at least 2 important factors:
neutrality: English used for international communication favors people from English speaking countries. Inside of Europe that is not to big problem, because Ireland and Malta, while being great counties, have relatively small population - so English can work as a reasonably neutral language for European communication. But when it comes to Europe in world - English is used but a country that left us and by country that wages trade war against us. That highlights that English definitely is not a worldwide neutral language.
ease of use: Esperanto was designed to be easy to learn and use, while functioning very well as a mean of communication. It does not carry a burden of centuries of non-systemic evolution, so it does not have things like irregular verbs. It’s grammar is very regular with simple rules. It enables creating words with a set of prefixes and sufixes so one does not need to learn a bunch of new (different) words about related things (like: to eat, to snack, to feast, food, meal, cantina, utensils, etc. - they are manĝi, manĝeti, manĝegi, manĝo, manĝaĵo, manĝejo, manĝiloj etc). Experience shows that learning Esperanto is 5-10x faster that learning national languages. It’s just much not efficient.
Than comes other factors, like pushing some way of thinking, usual for one specific nation, to all humankind, atc, but those 2 are the basic ones.
I even work on spreading Esperanto, as a neutral language for Europe and humankind 🫡
Why? English from England.
English, as an national language, is great for national communication.
But using national language for international communication is like using black-white television to watch a color movie - it kind of works, but it definitely loses a lot.
There are at least 2 important factors:
neutrality: English used for international communication favors people from English speaking countries. Inside of Europe that is not to big problem, because Ireland and Malta, while being great counties, have relatively small population - so English can work as a reasonably neutral language for European communication. But when it comes to Europe in world - English is used but a country that left us and by country that wages trade war against us. That highlights that English definitely is not a worldwide neutral language.
ease of use: Esperanto was designed to be easy to learn and use, while functioning very well as a mean of communication. It does not carry a burden of centuries of non-systemic evolution, so it does not have things like irregular verbs. It’s grammar is very regular with simple rules. It enables creating words with a set of prefixes and sufixes so one does not need to learn a bunch of new (different) words about related things (like: to eat, to snack, to feast, food, meal, cantina, utensils, etc. - they are manĝi, manĝeti, manĝegi, manĝo, manĝaĵo, manĝejo, manĝiloj etc). Experience shows that learning Esperanto is 5-10x faster that learning national languages. It’s just much not efficient.
Than comes other factors, like pushing some way of thinking, usual for one specific nation, to all humankind, atc, but those 2 are the basic ones.