You folks need to get out more lol.
This discussion is beginning to look like a bunch of medieval monks arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I disagree, it's important to establish why these rules can't be broken.

Bemused:You folks need to get out more lol.
This discussion is beginning to look like a bunch of medieval monks arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Hm, perhaps you shouldn't point fingers if you're sitting at your computer reading this discussion! You can certainly ignore the thread if isn't of interest to you.

Bemused was only joking, and I have to admit that I found it quite funny.

After all, I thought the English-language forum was meant for helping beginners, rather than a place for experienced speakers of Esperanto to bicker over grammar!

erinja:
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.

There is no correlative table, but there’s § 30 of the Ekzercaro:

Ia, ial, iam, ie, iel, ies, io, iom, iu. ― La montritajn naŭ
vortojn ni konsilas bone ellerni, ĉar el ili ĉiu povas
jam fari al si grandan serion da aliaj pronomoj kaj adverboj. Se ni
aldonas al ili la literon „k”, ni ricevas vortojn demandajn
aŭ rilatajn: kia, kial, kiam, kie, kiel, kies, kio, kiom,
kiu. Se ni aldonas la literon „t”, ni ricevas vortojn
montrajn: tia, tial, tiam, tie, tiel, ties, tio, tiom, tiu. Aldonante
la literon „ĉ”, ni ricevas vortojn komunajn:
ĉia, ĉial, ĉiam, ĉie, ĉiel,
ĉies, ĉio, ĉiom, ĉiu. Aldonante la
prefikson „nen”, ni ricevas vortojn neajn: nenia, nenial,
neniam, nenie, neniel, nenies, nenio, neniom, neniu. Aldonante al la
vortoj montraj la vorton „ĉi”, ni ricevas montron pli
proksiman; ekzemple: tiu (pli malproksima), tiu ĉi (aŭ
ĉi tiu) (pli proksima); tie (malproksime), tie ĉi
aŭ ĉi tie (proksime). Aldonante al la vortoj demandaj la
vorton „ajn”, ni ricevas vortojn sendiferencajn: kia ajn,
kial ajn, kiam ajn, kie ajn, kiel ajn, kies ajn, kio ajn, kiom ajn,
kiu ajn. Ekster tio el la diritaj vortoj ni povas ankoraŭ fari
aliajn vortojn, per helpo de gramatikaj finiĝoj kaj aliaj
vortoj (sufiksoj); ekzemple: tiama, ĉiama, kioma, tiea,
ĉi-tiea, tieulo, tiamulo k. t. p. (= kaj tiel plu).

However, in my opinion in the other thread TatuLe has already given the best argument against *alies. It makes the language seem more complicated, since you would need to explain to a learner why they can’t analogously form other correlatives (which they can with all others).

Chainy:After all, I thought the English-language forum was meant for helping beginners, rather than a place for experienced speakers of Esperanto to bicker over grammar!

Clearly, one of the esperanto-language forums would be more apt for that. I agree that it is a bit silly that this discussion happens in english.

But I am a little puzzled as to why some of these issues are issues at all.

Well said, Polaris.

Although this argument seems to be just about description (the facts of usage not being in dispute), descriptions have consequences.

If alies realy is ali-es rather than alies then there are different implications.

Let's start with the usage and your point about free combination of elements and special cases. I'm also addressing Kirilo's point.

Nobody says that 'nenie' means in no way, despite nenieco, neniige and all the other genuinely compound neni words.

Nobody uses 'alie' to mean aliloke (well mainly - as adverbs sometime get used in a spatial sense.)

In both cases we have a coincidence of forms and one parsing is considered correct.

This isn't an isolated case. Other coincidences occur which demand the correct parsing.

So when I say that Kolego is Koleg-o and not kol-eg-o in a particular context I am not indulging in sophistry.

Zamenhof was clearly giving advice about the correct parsing of the table words, but went on to be inconsistent, through his own usage, in respect of nenio and the other -io words.

The overiding principle in Esperanto is free combination and not the use of bound morphemes, or formation by analogy, or however you want to call it.

But I have to disagree with Kirilo, if he is saying that this doesn't exist in Esperanto.

You can illuminate the discussion by considering words from English.

For a while Watergate just referred to a single incident. Later words were made by analogy such that X-gate meant an exposed scandal where X was the topic. But gate is not use to mean an exposed scandal (again we have the coincidence with a pre-existing language element).

Esperanto uses -or in the many words ending in -oro in a similar fashion.

There really is no theoretical reason to reject alies, PROVIDED that you understand that it is NOT ali-es.

And there is no reason not to use neniigi, provide you understand that nenie is not neni-e.

sudanglo:Thee really is no theoretical reason to reject alies, PROVIDED that you understand that it is NOT ali-es.

Oh, that makes the language sooo much easier. Good thing I consider alies incorrect so I never have to explain this one to my students.

erinja:

sudanglo:Thee really is no theoretical reason to reject alies, PROVIDED that you understand that it is NOT ali-es.

Oh, that makes the language sooo much easier. Good thing I consider alies incorrect so I never have to explain this one to my students.

Glad to be of service, Erinja.