Esperanto was always another language to learn. The idea was never that you people would be able to read Esperanto without learning it; that's pretty much impossible, considering the diversity between languages (even looking just at Europe). The idea was to have a language that would be easy to learn and speak, owing to a simple, regular grammar, and using internationally recognisable words where possible.
Interlingua may be readily intelligible to speakers of Romance languages, but is its grammar any simpler than Esperanto's? Or is comparatively more complex and difficult to learn? Because that's what ultimately matters for the rest of the world's population who do not speak a Romance language.
Interlingua may be readily intelligible to speakers of Romance languages, but is its grammar any simpler than Esperanto's? Or is comparatively more complex and difficult to learn? Because that's what ultimately matters for the rest of the world's population who do not speak a Romance language.