Mesaĝoj: 115
Lingvo: English
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-10 11:53:53
As another page of PMEG states (I translate): "Sometimes we come across the unofficial correlatives .. They are wrong and should never be used."
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-10 12:43:47
PMEG's argument is specious and based on the assumption that if you use alies you must for consistency use alie (in the sense of aliloke)
This is clearly poor reasoning.
It stems from being mesmerized by the tabular form in which correlatives are normally presented.
Kredu min, aliel vi konfuziĝos.
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-10 13:44:48
sudanglo:Actually, alielists would need to say *aliam in such cases since *aliel would mean only "in another manner".
Kredu min, aliel vi konfuziĝos.
Anyway, aliu already means something as well.
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-10 18:00:41
Furthermore, learners deserve not to be misled. They should be notified of section 11.17 of the website's reference grammar that counsels against the innovation.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-10 20:33:37
How does it make sense to say 'Believe me, on another time you will get confused'?
My meaning was 'Believe me, otherwise you will get confused' - Kredu min, se vi ne agos tiel (do agos alimaniere) vi konfuziĝos.
NPIV does have the grace to list alies and aliel. There is no entry for aliu.
Were you thinking that you could make an imperative from a verb alii?
---------------------------------
Miland, the table of correlatives is mostly NOT built on a combination of beginnings and endings (in a word building sense).
Do la vortoj estas radikoj kaj NE kunmetitaj formoj.
However, nenio and nenia can be considered as exceptions (neni+o neni+a), since 'neni' is used in compound words: neniaĵo, nenieco, neniiĝi, neniigi, nenifari, like a normal root.
Some of those examples, by the way, are Zamenhofaj
bartlett22183 (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-10 20:58:39
erinja:We could use a little stirring up on the AUXLANG mailing list. Things have been rather quiet there of late.Fenris_kcf:Maybe I'm too much an idealist, but if there is a better solution, then I aim towards it, instead of staying where I am.So if you want to go changing Esperanto, moving towards what you see as being a better solution, go ahead. But this site is for learning and using a living language, not reform projects. It seems to me that Unilang would be the best place to discuss your ideas for moving towards a "better solution".
However, as a member there of many years (and now listowner), I do have to say that Esperanto reform proposals have pretty much been beaten to death. You can subscribe at http://listserv.brown.edu 
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-10 21:26:09
Bemused:It looks to be a very interesting resource for learners who want to ask "why is it so?" rather than just learn as is with no understanding of the reasons behind characteristics of the language.In general lernu's forums don't have too much problem with answering questions like "Why do we say such and such in this way?" or "Why do you think Zamenhof included such and such grammatical feature?". If you look thorugh our archives, you'll find many instances where users asked questions of that nature and got friendly answers in response.
We encounter problems, however, when people start to propose changes rather than asking simple questions. "It would be better if...", "Esperanto would have more speakers if...", "It would be easier if...", "We should get rid of the ...", etc.
I don't normally read the Unilang forums but I browsed through a little before I posted the link. It's interesting to read about Esperanto from the point of view of people who don't necessarily support it, or aren't involved in the community. It was especially interesting to note that most Unilang readers didn't seem at all well-disposed to reforms, though the readers of the Esperanto forum there aren't necessarily supporters of Esperanto. I saw several statements to the effect of "I'm not a particular supporter of Esperanto but proposing reforms to Esperanto is a waste of time".
If you have a question on how Esperanto is, the lernu forums are an excellent place to ask. If you want to complain about Esperanto or discuss reform projects without annoying your fellow forum readers, however, Unilang is a better place.
EDIT:
Funny thing but it seems like UniLang users are like ten times more rude than lernu users when putting someone down for their idea. This is a thread started by someone who finally left the lernu forums after persistent off-topic posts (in the English forum regarding his own conlang unrelated to Esperanto) and after persistent posting about his proposed Esperanto language reforms.
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-10 21:34:39
sudanglo:Well I have no idea Dark Weasel, what alielists would say, I had no idea there was such a group. But I would be very surprised if they would use aliam - on another occasion - in my sign off sentence.In analogy to se vi ne kredas min, tiam vi konfuziĝos.
How does it make sense to say 'Believe me, on another time you will get confused'?
My meaning was 'Believe me, otherwise you will get confused' - Kredu min, se vi ne agos tiel (do agos alimaniere) vi konfuziĝos.
sudanglo:NPIV does have the grace to list alies and aliel. There is no entry for aliu.Yes, I actually thought about that, and I’m nearly sure there was a mention of *aliu (as an incorrect correlative) somewhere in this thread before...
Were you thinking that you could make an imperative from a verb alii?
sudanglo:Yes, however in the same Lingva Respondo where he wrote about these forms, he also spoke out against *alies.
However, nenio and nenia can be considered as exceptions (neni+o neni+a), since 'neni' is used in compound words: neniaĵo, nenieco, neniiĝi, neniigi, nenifari, like a normal root.
Ĉiuj vortoj de la “interrilata tabelo” konsistas el du partoj: a) radiko, b) karakteriza finiĝo (ekzemple ki-al, ki-o, neni-u, neni-a k.t.p.). Ĉar pro diversaj kaŭzoj, pri kiuj mi ne povas nun paroli detale, la karakterizaj finiĝoj de la diritaj vortoj ne povis esti fiksitaj kiel finiĝoj sendependaj kaj ĝeneralaj (ekzemple mi estis devigita preni la finiĝojn e kaj u, kiuj kiel sendependaj finiĝoj havis jam alian sencon), tial mi devis alkroĉi ilin nedisigeble al la radiko. Tiamaniere ilia uzado sendependa (ekzemple en formoj “ali-u”, “ali-es”, “kelk-om”, k.t.p., kiuj per gramatika instinkto estis uzataj de kelkaj Esperantistoj) estas kontraŭregula. Sed en tiuj du kolonoj, kiuj finiĝas per a kaj o, la finiĝoj estas ne kondiĉe interrilataj, sed pure adjektivaj kaj pure substantivaj, kvankam ili, pro unuformeco, estas presataj en la vortaro kune kun la radiko (oni povus tamen tre bone presi ilin ankaŭ sen la finiĝo). Tial la forĵetado de la pure substantiva o kaj ĝia anstataŭigado per diversaj aliaj finiĝoj kaj sufiksoj ŝajnas al mi tre bone permesebla. Kompreneble, se tio ĉi donus ion novan, kontraŭan al la ĝisnunaj kutimoj, ni devus tion ĉi eviti, ĉar absoluta kaj laŭlitera reguleco tion ĉi ne permesus; sed, ĉar la vortoj “neniigi” kaj “neniiĝi” estas jam de longa tempo tre bone konataj kaj uzataj de ĉiuj Esperantistoj, tial mi opinias, ke malpermesi la uzadon de tiu ĉi formo estus tute senbezone.
Respondo 14, La Revuo, 1907, Aprilo
And by the way, adding to erinja: Currently, users might unfortunately be mistaken for reformist trolls simply because we’ve encountered a lot of the latter type in the last time...
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-10 22:22:44
sudanglo:..(in a word building sense).I didn't talk of "compound words". As PMEG puts it (I translate): "We can say that every correlative consists of a first and second part, yet we should not regard it as a compound word. The parts of correlatives form a separate closed system, and we should not normally mix them with the roots of the words in the language."
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-11 12:42:03
However his argument that 'alies' (and any similarly constructed form) is kontraŭ-regula only works if you suppose 'alies' to be a compound rather than a new root.
Allow that the -es in 'alies' is ne dekroĉebla and then the form ceases to be problematic - only that it is not Fundamenta but a later development.
Also his suggestion that all the correlatives ending in 'o' and 'a' can be considered root plus finaĵo doesn't hold water. It works for 'Neni' but not for Ti, Ki, Ĉi etc.
If Ti was a separate root then 'Tie' would be problematic.
Tial la forĵetado de la pure substantiva o kaj ĝia anstataŭigado per diversaj aliaj finiĝoj kaj sufiksoj ŝajnas al mi tre bone permesebla
No Uncle Zam! Then we should be able say 'ĉi-iĝi in the sense of become universal.