This paper discusses Esperanto as a planned language and refutes three myths connected to it, namely, that Esperanto is achronical, atopical, and apragmatic. The focus here is on a synchronic analysis. Synchronic variability is studied with reference to the structuralist determination of "marginality" and the dynamic linguistic description of "linguistic variables." Marginality is studied on the morphophonemic and on the lexical level. Linguistic variability is studied through a sociolinguistic survey. The sociolinguistic evidence is seen to converge with the structuralist evidence, and the synchronic analysis with earlier diachronic studies. It is hoped that this analysis will contribute to a redirection of scholarly work on Esperanto. (AM)