But then what's the reason for not accepting changes? I've yet to see a substantial reason for not allowing a gender neutrality reform.

razlem:But then what's the reason for not accepting changes? I've yet to see a substantial reason for not allowing a gender neutrality reform.

It's not a matter of there not being a reason strong enough not to do it, but a matter of there not being a strong enough reason to do it.

The vast majority of fluent Esperanto speakers clearly don't believe that the current system needs changing. It does not represent a big enough problem for reform to be considered. You can either choose to obsess about some idea of inequality, or perhaps just accept that the language is the way it is and that this doesn't actually represent any real sense of inequality. The latter is clearly the generally accepted conclusion.

erinja:I have sometimes wondered whether Ido speakers get newbies coming in and wanting to "fix" the language, and how they deal with that.

erinja:The point of Ido is that it IS another language. It isn't reformed Esperanto; it is a new language that uses Esperanto as its base.

Over the years I have been in touch with users (and fora) of both Ido and Interlingua. Sadly, "reformism" afflicts both, just as it does Esperanto. Both languages have definitions, for Ido the
Kompleta Gramatiko Detaloza (if I spelled that right, available online), and for Interlingua the Interlingua-English Dictionary and Interlingua Grammar.

Like it or not, both languages do work, but, just as with Esperanto, there are beginners and dabblers who think that they know better and can come up with something superior to 104 (Ido) or 60 (Interlingua) years of actual use and experience. I myself am aware of only a single accomplished Interlinguaist who has actually made serious proposals based on a genuine command of the language, but even so, his proposals have not been widely accepted. So I agree that once a conIAL has had some real world use and a "shakedown cruise," as the naval types put it, it should be left alone and used, not forever tinkered with.

(As for Idists frequently referring to Ido as "reformed Esperanto" or "improved Esperanto," I have stated repeatedly in appropriate fora that I consider this both incorrect and a methodogical blunder.)

Vestitor:

orthohawk:
As an American and a constitutionalist, I have to correct you here. We don't say it MUST NOT be altered. Only followed as PROPERLY ALTERED (with amendments, passed by congress and ratified by the states).

Then you say this: (again):
It's already been proposed and done. And obviously not made to be like English, but clearer French.

Me: OK, you've said this quite a bit but have yet to give any examples of it.

Good. Then (some of) the constitutionalists are more flexible than the fundamento curators. Food for thought eh?

To the second... in all the languages I mentioned the changes are there as actuality, go and find them for yourself. Show me I'm wrong.

So, in other words, you don't actually have any examples from the French. I thought so.

Chainy:

razlem:But then what's the reason for not accepting changes? I've yet to see a substantial reason for not allowing a gender neutrality reform.

It's not a matter of there not being a reason strong enough not to do it, but a matter of there not being a strong enough reason to do it.

Wouldn't making it easier to learn be a good enough reason?

The incandescent lightbulb worked fine. There was no need to replace something that simply 'worked'. But it was inefficient; it wasted energy. Of course no one had realized this until a few decades later, and a new version- the compact fluorescent- was developed. And even right now, people are adopting LEDs over fluorescents because they are more efficient. And this isn't just for lightbulbs. Every technological development has had an inefficient predecessor.

The drive to reform Esperanto stems from our natural tendency to make things easier for ourselves. You can't stop people's want to reform Esperanto anymore than you can halt technological development altogether. By solidifying the grammar in the Fundamento, Zamenhoff closed off all possibility of building a more efficient system within Esperanto. In doing so he fails to acknowledge a changing global environment and the possibility, however slight, that a fully-functioning language can be simplified even more.

You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We have a language that works extremely well. If there was another language that you could learn one month faster than Esperanto, it wouldn't be worth throwing away all of Esperanto's accumulated history and literature in favour of this new language with no user base, community, or culture whatsoever.

This has really become rather old. If you truly believe that reforming Esperanto is the best way to get more speakers, then have at it. Leave this site and go make your own site, or go find a reform project that you agree with and go join its forum or discussion list.

This site, and this forum, is for learning today's Esperanto, not for tiresome moaning about how much easier and more successful the language would be if only we reformed it.

I suggest that anyone who wants to moan about things take their complaints elsewhere. We Esperanto speakers love our language and we are proud of its achievements up to this point.

erinja:We have a language that works extremely well. If there was another language that you could learn one month faster than Esperanto, it wouldn't be worth throwing away all of Esperanto's accumulated history and literature in favour of this new language with no user base, community, or culture whatsoever.

Concerning gender reform: It wouldn't be a new language, it would still be Esperanto. Any official reform, no matter how small, would only add to Esperanto's culture and history, and not in a negative light. I don't know about you, but I would like to see Esperanto as a language that adapts to the global community, not one stuck in antiquity.

But egh. Whatever. I can't change your mind.

erinja:This site, and this forum, is for learning today's Esperanto, not for tiresome moaning about how much easier and more successful the language would be if only we reformed it.

+1

Razlem, have you ever tried writing something in the Esperanto-language forums here? I searched for your name in Google Reader and I found nothing...

It could be more productive if you actually tried to use the language, rather than just coming up with all sorts of theories about 'improvements'.

razlem: Any official reform, no matter how small, would only add to Esperanto's culture and history

Languages evolve naturally. An official reform would only encourage all of the enthusiastic reformists who are convinced they know what's best for the language and its speakers without even bothering to learn the language first.

I don't know about you, but I would like to see Esperanto as a language that adapts to the global community, not one stuck in antiquity.

Wow. That's a rather patronising thing to say, especially considering that you don't speak Esperanto to any level, as far as I'm aware.

Esperanto evolves, like English. Esperanto is a modern language like any other; if you believe it is stuck in antiquity, then obviously it's because you haven't bothered to learn the language and immerse yourself in the community. I haven't noticed any "antiquity" in any of the many internet, science, or technology-related talks and meetings that I've attended in Esperanto. We talk about all of the same things discussed in English, and then some.

However if you believe that Esperanto is "stuck in antiquity", then I suppose it's in good company, because most languages in the world are considerably more "antiquated" in various aspects of their grammar. That doesn't seem to prevent anyone from communicating their ideas effectively.

You have a right to your opinion, of course, but your opinion of Esperanto and its speakers seems so negative that it seems you'd be better off with another language community. Preferably one that hasn't finished being created yet, since as you've learned, speakers of living languages don't really take it very well when people who don't speak their language well (or even at all) come in and start telling them to change the way they talk.