erinja:"antaŭ ke" is considered correct, though it is rare. "Post ke" is also correct but rare. We commonly say "antaŭ ol" and "post kiam".

...but "post ol" is also correct (though rarely used), and "antaŭ kiam" is equally correct (and also rarely used).

Infanto isn't a word. Infano is a child, a young person. Ido is an offspring. An "ido" could be an adult, but an "infano" is only a child. In the Bible, we talk about the "Israelidoj", the children of Israel, but we are not talking about literal children; the group of "israelidoj" includes both adults and children.

About "Antaŭ ke", the point is "why is it rare"? And is it really seen as "correct"? Technically speaking it is, but if my memory serves me correctly I was advised to use "antaŭ ol" rather than "antaŭ ke" by the lernu! community because the "ol" form was used more, thus it's more "correct", it's the prescribed form.

As for "post kiam", damn, I must have heard things wrong at that same time

I guess a comparison to this would be "very much ____-er" vs "heaps _____-er" when dealing with comparative adjectives - the first is technically correct but is really poetic, where as the latter is what a South Australian would consider correct.

As for my typo there with "infano", all you had to do was point out that I spelt it wrong, when I read "Infanto isn't a word" I immediately thought you were about to say the correct form was something far different than a one letter difference

Regardless, why does "ido" not adopt the sense of a "child" through colloquial use? Because usage dictates it. If heaps of people started using "ido" for "child" in a similar sense to "infano", I can imagine it'd start to adopt its meaning. On the flipside, couldn't a parent call their adult child their "infano" regardless of the distinction, even though strictly speaking "ido" should be the word?

Anyway, my point's clearer with regards to those pairs of synonyms in my other post than with these "close but different" terms that have only a brief overlap in meaning.

"antaŭ ol" has been around since the beginning of Esperanto, which is why it's the most common. "Antaŭ ke" and "post ke" are definitely seen as correct, and if you do a Google search, you'll find plenty of hits written in good Esperanto, using those combinations. No one is telling you that you can't use "antaŭ ke".

People don't use "infano" to refer to their adult children. They don't usually use "ido" either; they refer to their "gefiloj" (filoj/filinoj as the situation requires).

But as sudanglo says, in other languages, usage is king. In Esperanto, usage is important, but usage isn't the only thing. It's not only usage that determines whether something is grammatically correct or incorrect, and people take advantage of this flexibility to greater or lesser degrees. Learning to strike this balance is part of learning Esperanto. A lot of your posts through the years have been on this topic, and it seems to me like perhaps you haven't entirely made your peace with where this balance should be.

In general, I encourage beginners to be conservative with the forms they use (that is, to stick to the most common forms). As you gain experience, you diversify a bit, because you have developed a better awareness of which unusual forms or innovations are likely to be understood easily, and which are likely to leave other Esperanto speakers confused as to your meaning, or getting the wrong idea.

If you want to make a linguistic reputation for yourself, Ceiger, a profitable field could be, how Esperanto has evolved and is still evolving, and how this contrasts with the haphazard drifting that takes place in natural languages in their evolution.

It would be fascinating to see well-documented, in one place, forms which had a certain currency at one time and then were rejected, together with forms that did not exist in general usage prior to a certain date and are now common-place.

As it would also be fascinating to see listed, proposals that were made by authoritative figures to solve specific issues, but which turned out to be totally still-born (and to explore the reasons for this).

I would find it difficult to encapsulate in a single principle the considerations, beyond usage by respected authors (or recommendations by respected authorities), which are brought into play by Esperantists in determining whether something is good Esperanto.

You will find many of these considerations in the arguments that are used from time to time in such discussions in these Forums.

If there is a single principle, then it is likely to be something along the lines of congruence with its role as an international aŭiliary language.

In detail, this principle might be unpacked to issues of consistency and internal logic, recognizability in an international setting, avoidance of potential ambiguity, potential for productive proliferation, and other considerations.

The closer you get to the core of Esperanto (the stuff that is usually included in any beginner's course) the more likely it is that any opposition to change would be based on the usage argument (ie. that's what we say).

Suggestions that we should use 'malviro' for 'woman' instead of 'virino' stand no chance of success for this reason - setting aside the illogicality of the expression. I suspect 'antaŭ ol' is similarly resistant to revision.

The only reason Esperanto is less covered by what is "considered" right is because our native community is smaller than our second language community. As soon as the first language community outgrow the second language community (something very possible to happen in the future) Then Esperanto will be completely the same as every other natural language. We are already seeing these drifts with users defining usage rather than the academies and other bodies. I personally welcome it as the language will evolve still following its core rules, but it will perfect itself with time… Time will lock this language down more and to think otherwise is to try defy evolution.

Its origins may be a fluke of history, but its as much a natural evolving language as any other. Point and click examples: komputilo, mojose <- I've even heard old Esperantistoj say it now! And yes I know its slang, and you think it will disappear with the next generation, but I think it will outlive all of us.

Bona artikolo *Esperante* http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluo_de_Esperanto

Just my 2 cents

Evildela:As soon as the first language community outgrow the second language community (something very possible to happen in the future)

I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future. It would kind of defeat the purpose of Esperanto. And in my experience, most Esperantists don't have Esperanto-speaking children (and if they do, they normally didn't learn it from their parents).

We are already seeing these drifts with users defining usage rather than the academies and other bodies.

Esperanto usage has always been defined by the users, not by academies. This is not drifting, and it's nothing new. It's exactly as Zamenhof intended things to happen. He created the base of the language, then gave it to the users. In fact, the Academy of Esperanto wasn't even founded until 1905, nearly 20 years after Esperanto was first published.

erinja:I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future. It would kind of defeat the purpose of Esperanto. And in my experience, most Esperantists don't have Esperanto-speaking children (and if they do, they normally didn't learn it from their parents).

Maybe, maybe not, though the language started 150 years ago, at present it has 1,000+ native speakers, not many I know, but that’s still 1,000 increase over 150years, now the more second language learners which pick this language, than the more first language speakers will be born (amongst that small minority which decide to bring up Esperanto children) thus increasing that chances of native Esperantists meeting and having their own children.
Esperantist also want this to be the 'second world language' as soon as one government approves this - bam, there will be many family’s created centred around this language. If this fails, then a small devoted minority will carry the flag of Esperanto on (just look at the Esperanta Civito) which is a group WANTING recognition, with native speakers. We call all laugh as much as we want at the Civito, but they show another side to the Esperanto culture.

Esperanto usage has always been defined by the users, not by academies. This is not drifting, and it's nothing new. It's exactly as Zamenhof intended things to happen. He created the base of the language, then gave it to the users. In fact, the Academy of Esperanto wasn't even founded until 1905, nearly 20 years after Esperanto was first published.

Yes your right, but what Zamenhof wants isn't always what’s always going to happen. I for one never learnt Esperanto because of its ideals; I learnt it because I fell in love with the logic and beauty of the language. My girlfriend and I are planning our first kid, I will teach this kid in Esperanto, and even my mother is now studying the language in support. I know every active Esperanto speaker in Sydney, and about 80% believe in the ideals of Esperanto, the others just love the language. All the new comers I train, very few are in it for the ideals.

sudanglo:Suggestions that we should use 'malviro' for 'woman' instead of 'virino' stand no chance of success for this reason - setting aside the illogicality of the expression. I suspect 'antaŭ ol' is similarly resistant to revision.

Probably. As I've put out there before, I think it's possible that native-non-native distinction in Esperanto is emulated with older texts and cultural artefacts taking the place of "native speakers". What the most prominent authors etc have used has probably had a large influence over what is accepted and what is rejected with regards to change in Esperanto.

erinja:Esperanto usage has always been defined by the users, not by academies. This is not drifting, and it's nothing new. It's exactly as Zamenhof intended things to happen. He created the base of the language, then gave it to the users. In fact, the Academy of Esperanto wasn't even founded until 1905, nearly 20 years after Esperanto was first published.

Not necessarily? I'd say usage is defined by the most respected individuals in the Esperanto community with the most convincing arguments or authority to explain why we should use XYZ and not ABC - PMEG for a good example.

While things like PMEG are somewhat descriptive rather than prescriptive (right term?), it seems like a tightly knit system. Zamenhof uses something, early esperantists mimic and improve on that, users use their works etc as inspiration for own styles and usages, grammarians etc compile these usages, users use grammars and experienced speakers to guide themselves.

But that's human nature and I would assume would work for most languages. Except:
1) Esperanto's a minority language spoken by a vastly spread out "diaspora" with limited contact, so we all home in on certain reputable sources, limiting the evolution of the language since we're all copying each other more closely (we have to, many of us has so little practical experience of the language compared to say our mother tongues that we can't easily afford to relax our standards in case we find at the next kunveno that we're incomprehensible )

2) Esperanto's a new language, meaning we're very close to the original works of the language and we're very aware of how it was originally meant to be, as opposed to English where we're so disconnected from the origins of English that we don't know what to call "good english" other than what we're using now (personally, I think we should all go back to speaking middle english, it was more flexible, easer to learn, no doubt the expressive power coupled with a logical spelling/sound correlation without sacrificing etymological relevance would help breed some great thinkers!).

Ergo, usage hasn't diverged that much, only in cases where the collective felt their wisdom was better or further to the core of Esperanto than that of the original users of the language.

@ Evildela:
About mojosa, the reason slang often dies out and is replaced is because someone respected from the next generation comes out with something even more "mojosa" from their viewpoint

Native speakers are an interesting factor, I want to see what an increase in them would do for the language. My concerns lie mostly in "undedicated learners" who might flock to Esperanto if it becomes a real hit craze worldwide, who learn it not because they have a shred of curiosity but more for social advantages.

Native speakers are like wrinkles, they add character. Undedicated learners are like sunspots - harmless and barely noticeable until they overwhelm everyone else and start causing melanoma! - or, on the flipside, they merely cause an outbreak of freckles or a nice bronze tan and bring a new character to the language....

The distinction between native speakers and non-native speakers in the customary sense of a group of speakers who have greater authority over what counts as 'good' or well-formed, by virtue of acquiring the language from birth, is inapplicable to Esperanto.

The purpose of Esperanto is to function as an auxiliary international language, and its design is such that there is little advantage in learning it before you obtain the age of reason.

In fact, this may be a handicap if the parents are not competent speakers. The child may have to unlearn what he or she has acquired from the parents and re-learn the language to an international standard.

One of the major advantages of Esperanto is that everybody is potentially on the same footing, the much vaunted 'neutrality' of the language.

Creating a group of Esperanto-speakers who feel they have special rights and privileges over the language, other than through conscious study, is to condemn the language to be on a par with the natural languages, and to lose one of it major features.

Esperanto must retain its controlled evolution subject to the sanction of the international community of speakers, and considerations relevant to its role, otherwise, as Erinaj says, it kind of loses its point.

Should Esperanto start to ape the natural languages and develop haphazardly, there really won't be any point. Why add another natural language to the world's 6000 extant natural languages? The world needs that like a fish needs a bicycle.

Zamenhof did hand ownership of the language over to the community of speakers at the First World Congress in 1905, but the fore-runner of the Akademio - the Lingva Komitato - came into being during the same event, and its task from the beginning was to protect the basic principles of the language and monitor its evolution. So I'm not sure we can separate the "communal" aspect of Esperanto from the activity of the Akademio so easily (cf. Esperanto en Perspektivo, section 20.1 and this wiki article).

sudanglo:The distinction between native speakers and non-native speakers in the customary sense of a group of speakers who have greater authority over what counts as 'good' or well-formed, by virtue of acquiring the language from birth, is inapplicable to Esperanto.

Well, obviously it's impossible to apply the distinction verbatim to Esperanto, but it's not that alien. You still have an authority, and subservient learners. That's what we're working with here. The authority can be anything - native speakers, professors of the language, learners with bright new ideas or martians. The learners is less of a variable and more a constant affected by the variable "authority".

The purpose of Esperanto is to function as an auxiliary international language, and its design is such that there is little advantage in learning it before you obtain the age of reason.

Debatable - they might subconsciously become better language learners, but obviously it's hard to tell.

Testing the language capabilities of adult apes is easier in some regards I'd guess.

One of the major advantages of Esperanto is that everybody is potentially on the same footing, the much vaunted 'neutrality' of the language.

Creating a group of Esperanto-speakers who feel they have special rights and privileges over the language, other than through conscious study, is to condemn the language to be on a par with the natural languages, and to lose one of it major features.

Well, I think it'd be possible to still make those who have studied the language well the ultimate authority on it, provided it's a learnt culture that even native speakers acquire.

Should Esperanto start to ape the natural languages and develop haphazardly, there really won't be any point. Why add another natural language to the world's 6000 extant natural languages? The world needs that like a fish needs a bicycle.

Strength can be found in diversity, and there's always space for more artworks. It'd be a disappointment if a setback like that were to kill of your fondness for the language, and reflective of this modern era where so many encounter a problem and rather than waiting it out patiently or working through it, they simply try to escape it.