Zamenhof gives examples to clarify what he regards as illegal usage of the endings of correlatives as independent suffixes. One of them is alies. The other examples he gives add up to a prohibition on using them to creating new words in general - such as alies.

So those people who want alies should go off and join people with an itch to "improve" the language and get the desire out of their system, and then return to Esperanto as it really is.

Zamnehof wasn't always right in what he said in Lingvaj Respondoj - as shown by subsequent usage.

In at least two places he is firmly opposed to something that has become quite normal Esperanto.

Nobody now thinks that 'Vi ne povas vivi sen manĝi' is no more than ordinary Esperanto. Yet he condemned this twice in LR.

For a further examples of a pseudo-suffix, look in the Rata Vortaro (rhyming dictionary) for the number of Esperanto words ending in -oro or -atoro, and where the first part happens to be a Esperanto root, and the oro or atoro expresses a common meaning.

It's very common in languages that new roots are created by analogy. But the difference between prezidento - prezidi and alia - alies is that alies has no word class ending, which puts it into a limited group of grammatical words in Esperanto. It's quite uncommon in natural languages aswell that new grammatical words (function words) are added.

Zamenhof condemns ali-es. Granted. It is not clear he condemns alies.

Look, Miland, in the end you have to look at what has happened in the language.

You can't comfortably hold the position that a form for which there is ample documentation in a respected corpus is NOT Esperanto. That's evidence for how Esperanto really is.

I am not suggesting any reform.

If you think my arguments are specious, say where the mistake is. Don't just plendaĉi.

TatuLe:It's very common in languages that new roots are created by analogy. But the difference between prezidento - prezidi and alia - alies is that alies has no word class ending, which puts it into a limited group of grammatical words in Esperanto. It's quite uncommon in natural languages as well that new grammatical words (function words) are added.

A interesting point Tatul.

I'll set aside that fact that alies has an ancient history.

Esperanto is relatively young. I suppose there must have been a time in English when the language had nowhere near the number of prepositions it has today (150) and maybe there WAS a period when there were a large number introduced. I wouldn't know.

But I'm not sure of the general point of arguing from what happens in the natural languages to what is OK in Esperanto.

In many respects Esperanto does not share the same evolutionary paths as the natural languages - if it did we would end up with a litter of historical baggage that would undermine the regularity of the language.

Here's an interesting quote from EnglishClub.com

It is not possible to produce a definitive list of English prepositions. That means that nobody can create a list of prepositions and say: "Here are all the prepositions in the English language – no more and no fewer." Why? Because complex prepositions can theoretically be added to the language at any time

English sometimes uses two or more words in a prepositional function where Esperanto uses one, eg according to = laŭ

sudanglo:Zamenhof condemns ali-es. Granted. It is not clear he condemns alies.

Surely you are not suggesting that when he refers to ki-al, ki-o, neni-u, etc earlier in the same text, that these words differ from kial, kio, neniu, etc.

It is obvious that he is using hyphens to show how the words are constructed (a correlative root and a correlative ending, as Zamenhof terms it, within the closed system of the correlatives table).

This is obvious to me from the context of the text, which similarly separates other correlatives after explaining how they are formed. And it's obvious to me as an Esperantist, because I frequently break up words in a similar manner, when explaining to someone how something is formed.

For a person who has read the complete text, it's disingenuous to suggest that Zamenhof meant to say that ali-es is a separate word from alies.

And for me it's hard to accept that a traditionalist would support a form that Zamenhof so clearly and expressly prohibited. I find it really surprising.

Faulty grammar and usage has been around since the beginning of Esperanto. For those that make these errors, it doesn't make their language "not Esperanto", but it does make it imperfect Esperanto.

One thing that really strikes me as I read Zamenhof's Lingvaj Respondoj is how influential these statements have been in Esperanto grammar. It's true that you do see that "sen + infinitive" form that he recommends against. But the vast majority of his suggestions hold up when compared to today's grammar and usage.

sudanglo:
Aren't the words studento, prezidento, regento, precisely a group where the -ento is used to convey a similar meaning, but isn't a general suffix and the first parts of the words are existing roots?

No, these are internationalisms, alies etc. isn't.

Saying that ali-es is bad but alies is OK in my humble opinion is just sophistry.
Word formation is not only part of the lexicon but also of the grammar. You can't just declare formations, which are obviously formed by analogy from within the language (a process that is not sanctioned by the Fundamento), as "new root" and pretend that all is OK.

I have seen "alies" used and thought it "how clever!" It made perfect sense. The same could be said for the use of the infinitive with "wrong" prepositions. But, as with national languages, just because something makes sense doesn't mean it's acceptable or even desireable. I can think of informal expressions in both Spanish and in English that reflect "relaxed" usage and, though used in everyday speech, are still regarded as non-standard. Every language has it's rules, and Esperanto is no exception.

The problem I have, though, is this: I thought that the rules of Esperanto were supposed to be the simple, fundamental rules, and that if a combination of word elements makes sense AND does not violate a fundamental rule (as opposed to some rather obscure, pedantic, minor point of usage), then it's okay. I thought that THAT was supposed to be one of the hallmarks of the language---that meanings could be rather freely constructed through adjoining various morphemes, thus accomodating international usage and reducing the need for memorizing irregularities and endless grammatical minutia.

At this stage in my Esperanto learning, I do find it rather taxing to recall all of the "this one's okay, but that one's 'out'---just because" situations. It seems like this is making the learning curve steeper and introducing the kind of complexities that Esperanto was originally intended to avoid. I'd like to hear from our experienced Esperantists on this as I'd like to understand this better.

I am NOT a reformer. I respect Esperanto as a language worth acquiring as-is, not as a hobby project that needs to be tweaked and modified. But I am a little puzzled as to why some of these issues are issues at all.

Polaris:The problem I have, though, is this: I thought that the rules of Esperanto were supposed to be the simple, fundamental rules, and that if a combination of word elements makes sense AND does not violate a fundamental rule (as opposed to some rather obscure, pedantic, minor point of usage), then it's okay.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. I believe that the confusion lies not in the grammar, but in the way the grammar is presented to beginners.

Although correlatives are taught using a table to facilitate memorization, "kiel", to take one word as an example, is its own root, NOT a combination of a prefix ki and a suffix el.

The correlatives table is therefore a closed system. Since ali- is not a correlative prefix, it can't be used with the correlative endings. That's fundamental. Bear with me and I'll explain why.

If you look at the Fundamento, you'll notice that there is no correlative table printed at all - the correlatives are defined individually in the dictionary section of the Fundamento.

I believe that to be intentional. You could say that the correlatives are a set of independent roots that happen to be formed in a strictly regular way, which can be described by means of a table. The Universal Dictionary is useful in this regard because it prints only roots, free of any grammatical endings; words are reduced to their component parts. a, abat', abel', abi', etc.

The notation used in the Universala Vortaro makes it clear that the correlatives can't be broken up into component parts, because otherwise, the component parts would be defined separately. As the dictionary explains in its introduction, to parse the word frat'in'o (in that notation), you'd have to look up the three separate components, frat', in, and o.

When you look up the correlatives, however, you will see that they aren't broken into components; ĉia, iam, kiel, etc., the correlatives are all printed as unbroken roots. If Zamenhof intended for their components to be used in word building, he would have printed the components separately, as ĉi, i, ki, ti, neni, ...plus -am, -el, etc.

Therefore if Zamenhof had intended for the components of the correlatives to be used as normal prefixes and suffixes, those words would have received independent listings in the dictionary. am, el, om, etc.

----

Just because the correlatives are invariable, doesn't mean that the unbroken correlatives can't be used in other words. "tiu" can't be broken into parts, but of course that doesn't prevent you from compounding it into other words - tiugrada, tiucele, etc.

Breaking a correlative into parts, however, is like breaking another root into parts. Student/ is a root; I can't parse it into stud/ and -ent, and then call a teacher an "instru/ent/o".

The fact that there are many words in the same family of meanings ending in -ent- doesn't make -ent- a suffix that I can apply to any Esperanto root.

sudanglo:.. 'Vi ne povas vivi sen manĝi' is no more than ordinary Esperanto. Yet he condemned this twice in LR..

Where, exactly? I didn't find the expression.

If you mean Respondo 20: la esprimojn “li faris ĉion sen ridi” aŭ “li restis du tagojn sen manĝi” mi ne konsilus al vi uzi. Prepozicion antaŭ verbo mi konsilus uzi nur en okazo de neceseco, se alie ni povas bone esprimi nian penson. Sed anstataŭ “sen ridi” aŭ “sen manĝi” ni povas ja tre bone diri “sen rido”, “sen manĝo” aŭ “neniom ridante”, “neniom manĝante”.

I translate:
"I would not advise you to use the expressions “li faris ĉion sen ridi” or “li restis du tagojn sen manĝi”. I would advise the use of a preposition before a verb only in case of necessity, if we are able to express ourselves in another way. Instead of “sen ridi” or “sen manĝi” we could indeed well say “sen rido”, “sen manĝo” or “neniom ridante”, “neniom manĝante” ".

The above amounts to advice not to do something except in case of necessity, hardly a "condemnation", more a counsel of restraint. It is a different matter with alies, which really is condemned explicitly as kontraŭregula.