Mr.Squishy said:
Oh man, I can't decide, most of them are good.
However, I want to object to the notion of Esperanto. That language is an abominiation, an awkward-sounding frankenstein sloppily cobbled together from European languages.
By "abomination, an awkward-sounding Frankenstein sloppily cobbled together from European languages", I suspect very strongly that Mr. Squishy really meant was that he IMAGINES Esperanto to be such. I speak Esperanto, and never have I felt it to be an abomination, or a Frankenstein, or awkward, or sloppy - it feels to me just as natural and seamless as the other languages I speak (French, Arabic, some German and Hebrew).
An excellent example of an ethnic language that, by Mr. Squishy's criteria, would be an "abomination, an awkward-sounding Frankenstein" because it is "sloppily cobbled together from European languages" is English. Yet, it doesn't feel that way. Why? Because everything imported into English has been thoroughly Anglicized, and no one stops to consider the source of they words they use - they just use them. When I use English words like "law", "angst", "giraffe", "John", "shampoo" or "ketchup", it never jumps out at me that they were taken from other languages (French, German, Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, Malay); I just use them as the English words they now are. You can make any English word SOUND artificial by just saying it over and over again; do that with enough words, and you have the impression the whole language is an artificial mess.
The same holds for Esperanto: everything imported into Esperanto has been thoroughly Esperantized, and when I use Esperanto words, I don't stumble over the fact that they came from this or that language, I just use them as the Esperanto words they are. The result is a seamless whole, just as much so as any other language.