tommjames:

Chainy:He's obviously referring to 'anecdotal evidence', but I think that would be 'anekdotaj indikoj/indikaĵoj', don't you think?

'Indikaĵoj' is the word I would use, yes. But I've seen 'evidento' used quite a few times for it, by Miner and others. A Google search turns up quite a lot of results too, so I would be hesitant to say you can't use it just because adjective roots used as nouns usually show the eco in a less concrete and more abstract way.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by that last bit...

Chainy:I'm trying to understand what you mean by that last bit...

For example, bona = good, bonaĵo = something good, bono = the quality of goodness, in an abstract sense.

The above scheme seems to me a good summation of how 'eĉaj radikoj' work in general, in Esperanto, but there are some exceptions to it. 'Inteligento' is a case in point.

tommjames:

Chainy:I'm trying to understand what you mean by that last bit...

For example, bona = good, bonaĵo = something good, bono = the quality of goodness, in an abstract sense.

The above scheme seems to me a good summation of how 'eĉaj radikoj' work in general, in Esperanto, but there are some exceptions to it. 'Inteligento' is a case in point.

So, "evidenteco" represents the quality of being obvious/evident... What would that be in English? Obviousness?

But, the NPIV2002 definition of 'evidenteco' is a little confusing:

evidenteco - klareco, kiun prezentas la vero al la menso, estigante certecon.
(= Clarity, which the truth presents to the mind, bringing about certainty)

It gives the example sentence: La evidenteco de la geometriaj demonstracioj.

Does 'obviousness' still fit with that?

Anyway, I still can't really see the link to using 'evidento' as 'evidence'. At first I thought it was perhaps just a little blunder, but Ken Miner uses it on many occasions in various articles (I noticed this thanks to your Google search link).

Chainy:So, "evidenteco" represents the quality of being obvious/evident... What would that be in English? Obviousness?

I'm not sure actually. 'Evidentiality'? 'Evidentness'? I guess 'obviousness' would work well enough in some cases.

Chainy:Anyway, I still can't really see the link to using 'evidento' as 'evidence'.

My guess is he intended it to mean something like evidentaĵo, or something that is evident; which is what evidence is, at least in a basic sense.

Using an eca radiko as a noun for an aĵo is unusual in Esperanto, but I wouldn't call it wrong. And in any case you understood immediately what he meant, so perhaps the link is not quite as impalpable as you think.

Quite a few non-sequiturs there, Erinja, in your post.

I don't know what more I can say to make you see that I both agree with Zamehof's point that the classic correlatives are roots, not compounds, and that at the same time 'alies' (as a root) is not alien to how Esperanto works.

The mechanism whereby a lot of people have come to use alies is active in other places in Esperanto.

Anyway, at the end of the day it is surely an untenable position that a word with a long history and used by respected authors is in principle wrong.

I say that it is in principle OK (does not undermine the language). You need a stronger argument than a misinterpretation of what Zamenhof said in Lingvaj Respondoj.

There really is no difference in principle to admitting televid as a root and admitting alies as a root.

I am not totally certain, Chainy, that Miner is using anekdota evidento in the sense of anecdotal evidence.

I read him as saying 'malgraŭ ŝajna evidento'. He is arguing that the use of alies has not in fact lead to the use of aliam, despite the fact that it may seem obvious that it would.

So the doubtful usage concerns anekdota.

I suppose you can say in Esperanto la pruvo estas nur anekdota. But can you extend this to apply to an evidento.

sudanglo:I am not totally certain, Chainy, that Miner is using anekdota evidento in the sense of anecdotal evidence.

I read him as saying 'malgraŭ ŝajna evidento'. He is arguing that the use of alies has not in fact lead to the use of aliam, despite the fact that it may seem obvious that it would.

So the doubtful usage concerns anekdota.

I suppose you can say in Esperanto la pruvo estas nur anekdota. But can you extend this to apply to an evidento.

That's an interesting idea. So the meaning can be seen as 'something that is anecdotally obvious'! So, I suppose this refers more to the resulting interpretation of the evidence, rather than to the anecdotal evidence itself.

That could make sense in the following case:

Simple dirite, oni sufiĉe ofte trovas ‘alies’ en la lingvouzado de E-istoj, sed preskaŭ neniam trovas ‘aliu’, ‘alio’, ‘aliam’ k.c. kiuj supozeble rezultus de uzado de ‘alies’ (kaj/aŭ ‘aliel’, por kiu mi ne argumentas) — malgraŭ anekdota evidento.

However, in another case on the same page, it's clear that he really does mean 'anecdotal evidence' as he contrasts it with the usage of hard evidence of actual usage:

Se modernaj aŭtoroj, kiuj uzas ‘alies’, ĝeneraligus ‘ali-’ kiel tabelradikon, tio evidentus en la Tekstaro. La malforto de anekdota evidento estas, ke oponanto povas uzi ĝin samefike (“miaj tri ekzemploj egalas al viaj tri ekzemploj” k.s.). Tial la reto kaj la Tekstaro tiom utilas.

And here's another occasion when Ken Miner uses the word 'evidento':

Resumo. Nek ‘alies’ nek ‘aliula’ estas tute senproblema. ‘Alies’ ja atencas la korelativan tabelon, sed laŭ la evidento ne disvastigas ĝeneralan misuzadon.

My first reaction as an English speaker was that it was a slightly botched way of saying 'anecdotal evidence', but what would someone think if they didn't know the English expression?! They'd be going down the route of our desperate analysis into types of obviousness.

When I searched the Miner article, I didn't bother to go beyond the first hit for 'evidento'.

I agree that when he speaks of the weakness of anekdota evidento he does seem to be just lifting the expression from Englsh.

In any case, Esperanto does need a word for evidence - which can be different from proof - and the sort of words offered by Wells may not be satisfactory for all uses.

When the police are gathering evidence, they may be taking witness statements (atestoj), and they may be taking cast of shoeprints.

Neither have the status of pruvoj, nor are they evidentaĵoj. Looking for clues (indicoj?) also seems to be different.

erinja:
Like it or not, televid/ is an official root in Esperanto, from the 8th oficiala aldono. Of course anyone could decide to use another root, like *televiz/, but I don't see it catching on. Rightly or wrongly, televid/ is widely used and has 'official' status, so any other usage is likely to be seen as wrong.

Oh, I do like it, thanks for the information about the official status of televid/, which solves the problem.

Maybe I should use "(televida) regilo". This word seems the be one of those things many families have their own special word for, e.g. we at home say "Kasterl", which is a dialectal diminutive of "Kasten" (box, casket).

Kirilo81:Oh, I do like it, thanks for the information about the official status of televid/, which solves the problem.

The Akademio de Esperanto has a dictionary section on the site where you can search for words. It's a great source on figuring out whether something is official; not every dictionary shows the status of a word.