Oh, and don’t forget the efficiency offered by affixes: “mal” to negate, “ega” to multiply… “malbonega” is very very easily deconstructed to “mal+bona+eg+a” which means “dreadful”, “awful”, “horrific”, or any number of useless synonyms.
Those words are mutated (mostly French-ified, like those who end in -ant) Latin nouns (like “super+visor” = “the one who sees from above”) or present participle (like assistant, “ad+sistens” = “standing near/at”). In Latin the only compounds you can find are preposition+verb/noun, the others are fixed forms, like the first two (“-or” is like the English “-er”).
Those don’t annoy me as much, as long as they’re below 64 letters it’s ok with me…
Prefixes and subfixes are ok, they have their function, they aren’t merciless word glueing.
I was only using that mercilessly glued word to demonstrate the flexibility of the language. As it happens, that mercilessly glued word was a direct translation of German (it appears in a dictionary.)
Affixes are great. So is combining words to compress the expression of them. In the above translation of EWLD, I used “enreve”, which is a compound adverb meaning “in-dream” but far more efficiently conveys the concept.
In Esperanto, it’s possible to convey expression that is not possible to convey in English, without a lot of round-about adjectives and stuff, purely because there is not a standardised way to flip between the four main word types. Try expressing “motherly” (patrina) as an adverb, for instance (patrine); similarly with “brotherly” and other such things.
does anyone know norweigan
I do, and I know there are plenty of other norwegians on these boards as well, so you should have no trouble getting answers to any questions about norwegian. 
I need to know what
Allehelgens Dod Helved Rike
and
Vredesbyrd
mean in english
Ah, that’s why.
Then how do you say fatherly? 
Peace bird? I’m guessing.
It means “Halloween Death Hell Nation” and something like “preaching anger”. It sounds old and maybe even made up. I guess it is black metal lyrics?
Indeed. Nobody in their right mind would use a word like that; most esperantists will only combine a maximum of three main-typed words and a couple of prepositions plus affixes. So “malbonegigisto” would be stretching it, but generally acceptable. It means "Someone who makes things dreadful for a living - (mal+bona+ega)+igi+isto (igi meaning “to make”.) Actually that word is fairly pleasant to pronounce, and certainly is not beyond quite easy deconstruction and comprehension.
Just remove the -in- which is a female suffix. Yes, I know, it’s sexist, but so is English and nearly other western language.
patro = father; patrino = mother
frato = brother; fratino = sister
filo = son; filino…
It works nicely this way, we just combine many affixes. For instance, fidomo (fi+domo) means “house of shame”; “fisekso” might mean an affair, etc… add “bo” to get marriage relations, so “bofrato” would be a son-in-law. Again, gluing words (and far more importantly, affixes) permits conveying concepts that are very difficult to do in English (what is your stepfather’s father in relation to you? A step-grand-father? Doesn’t really work, yet “vicavo” does it very well.
I officially don’t like the language, it makes women a subclass of men.
So does Judaism, Christianity, the English language (wo+man == vir+ino) and countless others. Yes, it’s sexist, but so is the rest of this planet, except some of the more “primitive” cultures living in Africa and other such non-taken-over-by-the-British-or-the-Spanish areas.
The world’s language is sexist. This is in comparison with some people who are not sexist. Nobody really cares about “merry christmas” being offensive to Jews, because it’s not offensive to them. Neither is “ino” offensive to Esperantist women.
Removed a comment because it was either it or the whole post. Do not flame. 
Finnish isn’t sexist. It doesn’t even have two grammatical genders. You mention Spanish taken areas—Basque is another language which is definately not sexist: yet another one without genders.
Good old Latin has genders, but it not sexist. “Vir” was the word for man, while “human” was the word for human—the decadent Roman empire started using human (homem, homen, hombre etc) for man and human and the Romance languages became sexist.
It doesn’t have to be like that. And it does make a difference. Languages reflect a thought framework, a culture, and I don’t want to abide by a culture that clearly states that women are subclasses of men.
Esperanto does not have grammmatical genders. I think grammatical genders are one of the worst things in Romance languages, they’re unneeded and cluttery.
I’m fully aware that Esperanto would be better if ino were joined by a male suffix. But in the social climate of 1870s Poland, sexism was normal. Esperantists have tried to get the Kongreso to desexismise Esperanto and have failed. Hopefully, they will succeed in the near future; after all, Esperanto is meant to be an impartial, culture-ignorant auxiliary language.
As for Finnish, I suppose I should start learning it now. Is four or five years sufficient to make oneself understood, if it’s learnt in one’s own time?
You can learn the basics—meaning what you need to survive a week in Finland—in a year. I know, that doesn’t sound motivating. 
It will take me at least five years to learn enough to be satisfied about my Finnish knowledge, it should take you some time too. The quirk is—it’s a very logical language, and it’s grammar is both very simple and reasonable. So after the painful first steps, it gets easy. But you have to mantain the vocabulary and the pronounce (if you’re learning to speak too), and that takes discipline.
Totally worth it. Sweet, neat language. 
[size=75]— edit —[/size]
As for Esperanto, I hope it becomes genderless. 
I see no sense in a democratic, neuter language that is neither.
Esperanto is genderless grammatically, it just assumes masculinity unless femininity is specifically stated, for some words.
Esperanto is also a very logical language, and its grammar simple and reasonable.
I looked at the Wikibook of Finnish, and it seems crap. (Not Finnish, the Wikibook.) I probably should buy a book at some point, but I am averse to paper-based literature.
I speak English! Don’t you think I can pronounce a real language? 
Excuse me for my odd phrasing, what I meant is—the pronounce it terribly hard to learn and mantain, so if you not only wanna learn to read and write, but also to talk in Finnish, that’s a whole additional effort you’ll have to make, more than you’d make if it was German or Norwegian that you were learning. 
Ah. There’s an accent to it? Esperanto doesn’t have one. I remember my German accent, it was atrocious. My french is slightly better though.
Nah, the whole phonology it really hard to get!
Yeah, they may be unneeded (for example for objects), but not that cluttery, as in all of the Romance languages there are only 2 forms (singular and plural) per gender (I think, since there are no more declinations). Articles are the hardest part, for example in Italian there are 6 ways of saying “the”, and 4 ways of saying “a/an”.
I guess it’s hard for beginners to figure out the gender of a telephone (unless they know the word first).
Yeah Dimmu Borgir Lyrics