"I find you very attractive."
Translation:Mi trovas vin tre alloga.
I find that, for a planned language, Esperanto tends to give its words too many different meanings, that are not extensions of the base meaning of the word, but "copies" of the multiple meanings of the word in another language that served as an inspiration for the esperanto word. The three meanings of Trovi are the same as three of the meanings of "trouver" in french (I am a native french speaker ), for instance - and not a simple logical derivation from one to another. I've seen a lot of other words ( and sentence structures) that I find (!) feel less like "good esperanto" than trying to speak esperanto by copying your native language, though they are officially good esperanto. I guess I expected more from a planned language and am a little disappointed. But that's just me venting, sorry.
It is very common for people new to Esperanto to feel the need to "vent" and criticize. With experience, many of the things you're venting about now will seem very sensible. You might even wonder how a language could be any way.
I'm not sure which three meanings of trovi you're talking about. PIV lists 8 definitions. The first six all relate to discovering something which was previously hidden. The seventh and the eighth have to do with having or coming to an opinion. This is consistent with how the word is used in English (find) and German (finden.)
There is also troviĝi which means that something is found (located) somewhere. This is also like German and English.
So, if Esperanto is like German, French, and English, and if Esperanto has been spoken this way for 130 years - it seems strange to assert that we're speaking Esperanto by copying our native language. We're actually speaking Esperanto by copying good Esperanto.
I was not talking about Esperanto speakers, but about Esperanto itself : the language has been, it seems, built following the logic and historic evolution of meanings of other languages rather than building a vocabulary meant to be clear with specific, derivable meanings. I am not saying you speak it badly - just that, in my opinion, I expected Esperanto to be a language built on its own internal logic, easy to understand whatever your original language, not on the idiosyncrasies or similitudes in a given language family. Learning it is fun, and it will be useful to me, but it doesn't conform to my ideal of an international, artificial language. Sorry to have made this page a long conversation about something other than learning the language itself!
> I expected Esperanto to be a language built on its own internal logic,
Why did you expect that? Esperanto is the product of the environment that it came out of. It was designed to be neutral, and in this sense it is neutral. I don't think it was ever designed to be "perfect" by any measure - since people can't even agree on what perfection is.
If everybody in the world says that potatoes have eyes and forks have teeth, what's wrong with saying that potatoes have eyes and forks have teeth? Doing otherwise would make Esperanto more difficult for everybody.
Wow...THAT was a COOL conversation! I thank both of you for sharing.
The beauty of the culture behind this wonderful language is that it does treat the others that it borrows from fairly. Think of it this way: Everytime a root word comes from an unrecognized source, it affords you the opportunity to investigate. The more you research the words and alternate meanings, the more knowledge you gain. As a native "American English" speaker, I often research the origins of many words we commonly use. I enjoy knowing the backgrounds of my speech. The Latin languages, Gemanic languages, the Greek influences...etc. In Esperanto, we are actually learning multiple languages at the same time. The research gives us a deeper look into the cultures of those languages as well. Therefore in conclusion, in my opinion it is reasonably an ideal multi-national vessel of communication.