Спасибо всем!

The problem is many people overestimate their own abilities. I think, it will be good, if such tag would be able automatically.

Good idea.

Кто-нибудь может посоветовать хороший и удобный украинско-русский словарь?

Его название еще не переведено на русский, поэтому вы можете найти "Yakut" в конце английской части списка. (Она находится перед основной русской частью).

Well, it seems Esperanto has many features of Turkish or Hungarian (every suffixe or ending has its own meaning), unlike Russian or perhaps German, when one ending can point on gender, case and number at the same time. But Hungarian has much more endings, than Esperanto, of course.

Thanks, that's intereting.

Saying "European language" I didn't mean pure European, but "something similar to Eupopean language" (opposite Chinese, that was mentioned like an example). Thus, Turkis languages, like Turkish or Tatar, seem to me more close to Indo-European languages than to Japanese or Chinese.

What do you suggest do replace "jn" with?

Sorry, if I misunderstood you )
I thought if you consider your opponent's words "there is no language ideally suited to be lingua franca" as wrong, so you mean that Esperanto is ideally suited for that. I just wanted to say nothing created by people couldn't be ideal. I heard that some people made of Esperanto something like an "idol". But I don't think it's refer to you or a single person here. )

Maybe, you learned it deeper than me.
For me it seems like "broken Italian", but I understand, that is just my perception, cause I knew Italian before Esperanto. It's like for many Russian speakers Ukrainian sounds like "spoiled Russian", though it doesn't mean there is something wrong with Ukrainian. It's only people's perception.

Esperanto is an European language essentially, cause it has been created by an European.

I agree. It's arrangered as an absolutely regular language without any exceptions to make its studing as easy as possible. Due to , it has no that "elegance" and "vivacity", which is created by irregularity, it's rather a tool for communication, than for creating literary masterpieces. Though "simple English", which is actually an internation language, is not suitable for creating masterpices either. It's just have a
wide dissemination.

Well, how you could deal without plural endings?

Esperanto is not perfect and it can't be perfect or ideal, like all the things, created by people.

It seems, all the sentences have been unlinked by themselves.

Actually, this difference could be too slight to consider it seriously.
Well, I can named at least three people, who are contributing in Russian corpus, but not included in the CK's list. I can't estimate the quality of sentences on their "mother" tongues, but their Russian sentences as good as other member's ones.
For most minor languages of Russia it's almost impossible to find speakers who are not bilingues.

I think you'd rather leave this kind of sentences for beginners. :)
It's not your level of English, I guess.

Also,in my opinion it's not a very good idea to focuse yourself only in translating of English sentences. You can translate such simplest sentences from German or French, it could be more useful for your studing and not so boring, and then link your translations to undirect English translations.

The difficulty of this idea is we can't always definite, what is a "native speaker".
In most cases it's obviously, but not in all cases. Some people stop use their mother tongue actively, since they move in another country.
Also, there is a number of bilingues. When someone actively uses two languages since his/her childhood, he/she can speak both of them naturally. Should we provide a possibility to sign two or even three languages as "native"?

I think, such explanations of the meaning of idioms can be very useful.
Some people tend to translate idioms, which they don't know, literally and it produces rather strange sentences sometimes.

In my opinion, tagging own sentences "OK" doesn't seem as an useful idea... Everyone will do it, so, it will be just wasting of time.

About "objective" evaluating of sentences. I think, when someone learn a certain languages, he/she wants to know common and widespread words and sentences at first. Rare forms and peculiar sentences can be interesting for advance learners. So, for many people (just like me) standard and grammatically correct sentences are the best ones. I don't see something bad or not comfortable for "minorities" if such universal sentences will have an advantage. Those, who want to see rare and peculiar sentences, always can do it.

But generally, I agree with your idea.

I'm agree with much things, you said.

I think all the sentences we can conditionally divided on several categories:

1) Standard sentences, that are used by most native speakers and understood by all native speakers (they included common bookish sentences, common colloquial sentences, common universal (both bookish and colloquial) sentences. In my opinion, this is the most useful part of the corpus for most learners. We can attribute a single sentence (created by a native or a non-native speaker) to that category, if it's grammatically correct and sounds natural for most native speakers (not for only some of them).

2) Grammatically incorrect colloquial forms, widespead among natives (so-called "popular language). Putting these forms, we must point it clear, that they are shouldn't be used for school or university studing.

3) Slang sentences (excluding widespread ones, that can be in the first category).

4) Sentences with dialect words, that is unknown to many native speakers.

5) Archaic sentences.

6) Peculiar sentences, created by a native speaker, who says, he/she uses them in their everyday life, but they sound strange for most other native speakers.

7) Literal translations of foreign sentences. They sound strange, but they can be useful for those, who uses one language to study another language.

8) Unnatural sounding and/or grammatically incorrect sentences, created by non-native speakers, who probably don't have necessary skills in that language. They should be corrected or deleted.

9) Other sentences, created by non-native or even native speakers, there is no consensus among natives about. Many of them consider they as good and natural, and many others don't. We can divide this category in two (created by natives and created by non-natives) if someone thinks it's useful. I can name it "doubtful" sentences, and they shouldn't be included in the first category.

In my opinion, we should let every user to choose, which categories he/she would like to see. By defoult it can be the first category.