English, Indonesian or Esperanto

Esperanto is easier for people who have a European linguistic background.

Asians might as well learn English instead of Esperanto. At least English is a natural language. Spoken by millions as a native language. Not to mention the advantages it has.

<<English may be easier than many European languages, but you still have a huge number of irregular verbs, phrasal verbs, idiomatic irregularities, etc.>>

I thought English had relatively few irregular verbs (perhaps 200, if you discount compounds like 'overrun,' 'underrun', etc.).

Doesn't every language have a huge number of idiomatic expressions? As for phrasal verbs, I've heard several E2L students say they're a piece of cake.

I've noticed that people always like to talk about how English is so irregular. Compared to what? Constructed languages like Esperanto? Most other languages seem to have a lot more irregularities to me. For instance, Spanish and French are full of irregular verbs and they're much harder to learn because they have way more forms than English verbs. Then there's the fact that the grammatical gender in those languages is irregular as well. The word endings can give you hints but no guarantees. The only major irregularity in English that most other languages don't have is its spelling.

<< For instance, Spanish and French are full of irregular verbs >>

Most irregular Spanish verbs exhibit regular patterns, though. For instance, in many verbs, such as "poder", "o" becomes "ue" when stressed. Things like these are still mostly regular enough that you can quickly develop a feel for them.

You could say the same about English verbs, so what's your point?

No, you cannot say the same.

what about I fly, I flew, I eat, I ate, etc. they follow no pattern what so ever.

Following patterns or not, Spanish irregular verbs are tricky and even native adults commit mistakes sometimes.

<<what about I fly, I flew, I eat, I ate, etc. they follow no pattern what so ever.>>

You mean that they follow no pattern that you can discern.

"Following patterns or not, Spanish irregular verbs are tricky and even native adults commit mistakes sometimes."
>>That is ridiculous.

"You mean that they follow no pattern that you can discern."
>>No, I mean that they follow no pattern or rule whatsoever, here are more examples: break, broke, take, took, see, saw, etc.

Why is it ridiculous?

because it's non-sense, spanish-speakers can't make mistakes when writting (or just a really small percentage anyways), unlike english-speakers.

Yes they commit mistakes, assuming you use a prescriptivist point of view. I can tell you because some people say for example fuertísimo when it should be fortísimo, for example.

It's 'make mistakes' not 'commit mistakes'.

Anyway, the only reason people make so-called 'mistakes' in their own language, is because they have heard something else being used. So an English speaker might say 'I've took' instead of 'I've taken, because other people sometimes say this. If native speakers always normally said 'I've taken', then no-one would be confused as to whether it should be 'I've took' or 'I've taken'. The same must be true of the Spanish example. No one would confuse these verb forms, if they had never heard anyone else do it (to the above poster, you obviously recognise this, as you mention prescriptivism). However it is quite conceivable that a language such as English, with limited verb morphology, might see a greater use of forms other than the traditonal 'correct' form, than a language with greater morphology such as Spanish. The point is that it reflects actual usage, and not native speakers' difficulty in being able to use the 'correct' grammatical form.

"Yes they commit mistakes, assuming you use a prescriptivist point of view. I can tell you because some people say for example fuertísimo when it should be fortísimo, for example."

>>Actually it should be fuertísimo, fortísimo doesn't sound right.