Crabby, thanks for the expansion, I had missed the previous piece.

I'm not sure it adds much to the story, though. I am still of the opinion that we are in a demand-driven environment, and while it may very well occur that English is eventually superseded as the world's natural second language, I cannot see its replacement being Esperanto.

Your observation on the lack of a strong network effect shows the problem starkly.

"...maybe the “network” could begin to expand significantly if two or more corporations dealing with each other across linguistic borders were to agree to train their staff in Esperanto."

Corporations are complex organisms. If I were to present the case for your proposal to the Board, I would have to show a number of things, the first of which would be the net value of the investment - not to the world at large, but to my corporation. At the same time, my counterpart in the other corporation(s) would be doing the same thing.

What, exactly, could we point to that would create the necessary added value?

Would we have a competitive edge in the market, and how would it manifest itself? Would we be able to lower our cost base, and if so how? What would we need fewer of (in expense terms), and where would we gain revenue or profitability?

This was my point about diplomats and politicians. They have no compunction about spending other people's money for no tangible value in return. (Quite the opposite, in fact. If they didn't spend our money, they would simply disappear.) More importantly, they have absolutely no need to express complex thoughts and ideas - to do so is anathema to their calling.

Business, on the other hand, relies heavily on precision in understanding; there is simply no substitute for learning your opposite number's language. Using an intermediary platform requires two specific translation points, each of which will leak information. And information degradation creates risk.

Pericles, I agree with you. Shakespeare is beyond my reach. I can't study him in depth as you did in school. So the question for me is: nothing, or something? I prefer something, even knowing it's far from the real thing. Poetry is untranslatable. How would you render with all its harmonics Esperanto poetess Eli Urbanova's verse *La dolce lula belo betula*? "The sweet lulling beauty of the birch" is awful compared to the original, with the special atmosphere created by the rhythm, the vowel sounds and the alliterations. If I gave you my translation of the Macbeth piece, you'd judge Esperanto on the basis of my translation, instead of judging me on the basis of my lack of talent. It would distort the picture.
Esperanto is not perfect, far from it. But it's the less unfair, the less unpleasant, the less expensive of the means of mutual understanding available to people with different mother tongues. English puts 95% of the world population in an inferior position in relation with native speakers, and is an incredibly complicated tool for non English speakers. Broken English gives pitiful results, as compared with Esperanto, after a much bigger investment in time and effort (four hours a week for five years in most countries). If a comparison of the various systems of linguistic communication in use today interests you, go to http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/communication.htm .
English is a very rich language, you say. Indeed. And yet many Esperanto words have no equivalent in it, for instance *samlingvano* "a person speaking the same language", *filminda* "worth being filmed", *kisema* "who has a tendency to kiss a lot". Because the right to combine elements is unlimited, Esperanto's vocabulary is infinite. The difference between the two languages is that English's richness is a matter of memory, of hours and hours of being in an English speaking environment, whereas Esperanto's is a matter of intelligence, or of reflex, so it gives equal chances to all, wherever they live, after a very sensible investment in time. From a global point of view, the former is artistocratic, the latter democratic.

Interesting points have been made about Shakespeare. As a follow on from that, how would Esperanto handle figures of speech such as simile and metaphor? How about alliteration and poetic rhyming? Or poetic license? Could we savour the cheeky delight of a cunningly worded erotic limerick? Or the challenge of a cryptic crossword? And would anagrams be easy to both devise and disguise?

How about humour? Either a subtle or a terrible double entendre? [And how would we translate "terrible" in this context?] What about menage a trois? Or either a very clever, or very awful pun? [Translate "awful" in this context.]

And if we describe a lady as "petite", this word carries far more meaning than its literal translation from the original French.

Over to the Esperantists. [I hope this is the correct term.]

Thanks valano, you've already answered me on alliteration. Looks good too!

For "person speaking the same language" I'm comfortable with the [well known in Australia] Italian colloquial word paesano, "man from the same town".

And I'm enjoying this interchange of ideas.

Pericles, here is the Macbeth piece translated by an American friend:

"Shi devus morti poste;
Tiel postrestus temp por tia vort.
Morgauo, kaj morgauo, kaj morgauo
Rampas chi-etapashe de tag al tag
Gis la lasta silab' de registra temp,
Dum hierauoj stultulojn lumgvidis
al voj de polva mort."
(*j* is pronounced as *y* in *boy*)

Rex, no problem with metaphors. By discussing, corresponding, taking part in international Esperanto life, speakers acquire a sense of which metaphors are universal and which are not. "Slug" is *limak*. Slugs are slow. So one way of expressing that someone is moving very slowly is to say that he or she *limakas*. (You can use any concept as a verb at the present tense by adding *as* to the root.)
As to rhymes, there is even a special poetic form in which roots rhyme according to a pattern and endings to another:

Agrable
sur sablo
mi kushas.
Kontente
la vento
min tushas.

Nur bruas
la skuo
de l'ondo.
Forestas
la resto
de l'mondo.

(Vowels like in Spanish, Italian or Latin, stress always on last but one syllable).

Pleasantly / on sand / I lie. // Contentedly / the wind / strokes me. // The only noise/ is the shaking (the tremor)/ or the waves. / Absent is / the rest / of the world.

Humour, limericks, double entendre, puns etc. abound in Esperanto thanks to the unlimited freedom to combine elements. I remember a poem about a man who moved from Cuba which ended by: *edzecon fugis kiel fidel-kastron* "He flew away from marriage as from *fidel-kastro*, *fidel-kastro* = "the castration that is faithfulness".
Or, to take a more serious example, there is a Chinese four word phrase exhorting fathers to act like fathers and sons like sons. *Patro patru, filu fil* is an exact rendering of this Confucianist sentence, much more encompassing than all its Western versions.

*Esperantist* is correct, but personally I prefer *Esperanto speaker*, the *-ist* suffix risks to add connotations that can evoke something quite different from what is meant, which is simply "somebody who uses Esperanto"

Rex, "man of the same town" is in Esperanto *samurbano*, which I feel is quite different from *samlingvano*, "somebody with the same language". Compare: *samlandano* "fellow-citizen", *samreligiano* "coreligionist", *samoazano* "a person from the same oasis", *samlunano* " somebody from the same moon, from the same satellite of a given planet". You are my *samforumano* : we take part in the same forum. The series is unlimited. And there are many synonyms. "Fellow student" can be *samklasano* "someone of the same class", *samlernejano*, "of the same school", *kunstudanto* "who studies with…", *studokunulo* (*kun* = "with", *ulo* = "somebody who…" > *kunulo* "companion", *studo* = "study"). Esperanto is rich as nature is rich. Everything living is composed of just a few elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, a small number of trace elements, a few metals. And yet, what a variety! What a difference between a kangaroo and my little self, between you and a mocking bird ! This is what happens when nothing restricts the possibility to combine things. One of the reasons why I'm in love with Esperanto is that I feel free in it as in no other language. And the effort needed to reach that marvel is very light, as compared with other languages. It's the most cost effective language in the world.