Well, I don't know what you're after then. If you don't like the existing system, then change it.

Are you reading Sudanglo's messages? He isn't proposing that anyone change the system. Rather, he is suggesting that people are interpreting the existing grammatical system with too much rigidity. It's relatively straightforward.

And I said that a language (especially Esperanto), requires absolute rigidity in order to maintain consistency of meaning. If you leave the door open for unchecked semantic fluidity, the language is going to become chaotic.

razlem:And I said that a language (especially Esperanto), requires absolute rigidity in order to maintain consistency of meaning. If you leave the door open for unchecked semantic fluidity, the language is going to become chaotic.

I think that most people here would agree that a line of grammatical acceptability should be drawn somewhere between a free-for-all and a rigid set of strict rules. Of course there will be disagreements about the precise location where that line should be drawn! You seem to have drawn your line at the extreme end of strictness, if I can judge by your message. But it doesn't mean that you should accuse someone with a different opinion of that line's optimal location as supporting "unchecked semantic fluidity".

Grammarians have taken some stabs at codifying and regulating word building, but I doubt that most Esperanto speakers have ever read those rules. Whatever the various grammarians have to say, I would argue that the everyday Esperantist (the Esperantist "John Q. Public" or "Joe Bloggs" - Ludoviko Esperantisto?) still operates on the principles of sufiĉo kaj neceso (enough rules to ensure that everyone understands one another, but not too many, so that things become over-complicated), not codified grammatical principles. And we seem to get on fine.

Some "slippery slope" arguments have merit, and some are just an easy way of shooting something down without bothering to learn much about it. I don't know where you stand in your Esperanto studies, but I suggest learning the language to a reasonable level before suggesting that it risks descending into chaos based on the way people do their word building. Maybe your opinion will change, and maybe it won't, but at the very least you'll have some experience to back up your conclusions.

Grammarians have taken some stabs at codifying and regulating word building, but I doubt that most Esperanto speakers have ever read those rules.

Absolutely, Erinja. The issue here is not changing the language but giving a coherent and simple account that covers all the cases.

For general amusement, to demonstrate how grammmarians can tie themselves in knots in forcing their theories on the language, I quote a passage from PAG concerning a word like 'senpova'.

(Cx/Bo)-o-a signifas: prepozicia maldekstra flankelemento, per kies inversa efiko ĉiaradika dekstra flankelemento substantiviĝas, formas kun tiu substantivigita dekstra flankelemento duoblan flankelementon disfalan antaŭ la proprafunkcia a-finaĵo, kiu siavice, per sia vortefiko, substantivigas la duoblan flankelementon kiel unu tuton.

Help!!!

erinja:I think that most people here would agree that a line of grammatical acceptability should be drawn somewhere between a free-for-all and a rigid set of strict rules. Of course there will be disagreements about the precise location where that line should be drawn! You seem to have drawn your line at the extreme end of strictness, if I can judge by your message.

Well, this goes back to my opinion that the roots should share a common part of speech. As evidenced by my own language, I'm actually pretty lax when it comes to derived meanings.

erinja:But it doesn't mean that you should accuse someone with a different opinion of that line's optimal location as supporting "unchecked semantic fluidity".

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. When I say "unchecked", I mean the arbitrary assignment of additional parts of speech. If you have a method to the assignment of multiple parts of speech to roots, it'd be fine (ex. 'X part of speech' can be assigned to Y roots, but not Z roots). But if you can't even define Y or Z roots, then you can't have a system for X. The assignment becomes arbitrary or subjective.

erinja:Some "slippery slope" arguments have merit, and some are just an easy way of shooting something down without bothering to learn much about it. I don't know where you stand in your Esperanto studies, but I suggest learning the language to a reasonable level before suggesting that it risks descending into chaos based on the way people do their word building. Maybe your opinion will change, and maybe it won't, but at the very least you'll have some experience to back up your conclusions.

In my opinion the language is already chaotic. I'm trying to convince you not to make things more complex than they need to be. Maybe, Erinja and Sudanglo, you should learn another constructed language (!) so you can better understand my point of view.

razlem:In my opinion the language is already chaotic. I'm trying to convince you not to make things more complex than they need to be. Maybe, Erinja and Sudanglo, you should learn another constructed language (!) so you can better understand my point of view.

I don't understand what you're trying to suggest here. At this point, Esperanto is not up for being changed. Like it or not, its grammar is more or less fixed, aside from natural slow linguistic evolution.

You could argue that we could *describe* the existing Esperanto grammar in a different way. But studying another constructed language doesn't actually change anything about the workings of Esperanto grammar. We could argue over the properties and rules of Esperanto grammar, but there's no place there for suggestions for improvements, or the way things should be, because the language isn't up for revision.

We aren't discussing a theoretical ideal constructed language here; if we were, then suggesting the study of multiple constructed languages would have merit. If I want to write my own language, I should study as many languages as possible. If I want to create my own "New, improved Italian", then I should study how other Romance languages do things. But if I want to improve my understanding of how Italian works, the Italian of today, and if I want to speak to today's Italian speakers, then I should study Italian, not French, Spanish, or Chinese.

sudanglo:I quote a passage from PAG..Help!!!

Here is my interpretation of PAG's terms, which may help in understanding this passage.

(a) Inversa refers to going from left to right in interpreting a compound, instead from right to left.

(b) Disfala means that a compound, thanks to following principle (a), is not a proper substantive on its own, e.g. senpovo.

(c) Substantivigo means that the ending -a treats whatever is before it like one (compound) substantive. At least, according to PAG.

erinja:I don't understand what you're trying to suggest here. At this point, Esperanto is not up for being changed. Like it or not, its grammar is more or less fixed, aside from natural slow linguistic evolution.

I thought we were talking about the interpretations of word meanings in compounds.

erinja:You could argue that we could *describe* the existing Esperanto grammar in a different way. But studying another constructed language doesn't actually change anything about the workings of Esperanto grammar.

No, but it gives you insight into another way of doing things. It doesn't have to be constructed. You could look at any natural language that uses compounds, such as German or English, and see how each word in the compound is treated.

sudanglo:For general amusement, to demonstrate how grammmarians can tie themselves in knots in forcing their theories on the language, I quote a passage from PAG concerning a word like 'senpova'.

(Cx/Bo)-o-a signifas: prepozicia maldekstra flankelemento, per kies inversa efiko ĉiaradika dekstra flankelemento substantiviĝas, formas kun tiu substantivigita dekstra flankelemento duoblan flankelementon disfalan antaŭ la proprafunkcia a-finaĵo, kiu siavice, per sia vortefiko, substantivigas la duoblan flankelementon kiel unu tuton.

Help!!!

Yes, I think I'd have to read through that quite a few times to make any sense of it! I'd be tempted to just skip to the examples...