I’ve posted your comment to that post:
http://carlosquiles.com/indo-european-language-blog/2008/05/11/esperanto-other-invented-languages-vs-indo-european-and-iv-persistence-of-error/

You quibble about the difference between Esperanto as a “constructed” language and Indo-European as a “reconstructed” language. But you go on to say that you have only a tentative word now for “sun” and may have to replace it “because of a different Vedic Sanskrit or Tocharian attested word.” Why would anyone want to learn a language where the words may be constantly changing?

You say that your language, Indo-European, is the one spoken 4,500 years ago. How do you know that your version of this language is what was actually spoken then, if you also say (above) that you are not sure what the word for “sun” was? And why pick 4,500 years ago? Wasn’t Indo-European spoken before then, as some believe, or even later, as others believe? How do you pick an arbitrary date?

You belittle the figure of 30,000 book titles in Esperanto. This is the approximate number of titles of an Esperanto library in London. It consists of both translations (such as that of the Polish epic “Pan Tadeusz”) and original works. Your reference to the number of book titles of Proto Indo-European on Google refers to scholarly books ABOUT the language not IN the language. Moreover, you can go to a Vikipedia in Esperanto (a version of Wikipedia) and find thousands of articles written IN Esperanto. Esperanto is the 15th most popular language on this site, out of some 6,000(?)languages in the world.

You admit that Esperanto is much easier to learn than Indo-European and claim that this is not important. I disagree. I learned Esperanto at age 12 and had a good command of that language within a few months. But it took me 4 years or more to attain some degree of proficiency in French and later Polish, and I am still struggling with Latin and Russian.

I commend you and others for the work being done in Proto Indo-European, as I have an interest in this field. But don’t deceive yourself that you are able to “reconstruct” Indo-European as a spoken or written language. The best we can hope for is to come up with probable formulas for the words, pronunciation and grammar of this language. A tale “written” in this language by one of the scholars has since been “improved upon” amsny times, as new knowledge has been acquired. It is just as impossible to reconstruct classical Latin from French, Italian, Spanish, etc. We know Latin only from written books and documents (and are still not certain of its pronunciation). But there are NO written books or documents IN Indo-European!

I sincerely hope that the “Universal Law of Persistence of Error” does not mean you will continue to think you can “revive” Indo-European as a spoken language.