young the learning of a certain number of words presents practically
no difficulty; it is in the practical application of words learnt
that they break down, and this failure is almost entirely due to
"unnecessary" difficulties.

As for difficulties of structure, some of the chief ones are as follows:

_Multiplicity and complexity of inflections._ This does not exist in
Esperanto.

_Irregularities and exceptions of all kinds._ None in Esperanto.

_Complications of orthography._ None in Esperanto.

_Different senses of same word, and different words used in same sense._
Esperanto—"one word, one meaning."

_Arbitrary and fluctuating idioms._ Esperanto—none. Common sense and
common grammar the only limitation to combination of words.

_Complexities of syntax._ (Think of the use of the subjunctive and
infinitive in all languages: _ού_ and _μή_ in Greek; indirect speech
in Latin; negatives, comparisons, etc., etc., in all languages.)
Esperanto—none. Common sense the only guide, and no ambiguity in
practice. The perfect limpidity of Esperanto, with no syntactical rules,
is a most instructive proof of the conventionality and arbitrariness of
the niceties of syntax in national languages. After all, the subjunctive
was made for man and not man for the subjunctive.

But readers will say: "It is all very well to show by a comparison of