The whole issue is really one of careful usage. A usage which is largely observed.

In the Tekstaro there are 755 hits of 'ekde' and practically all of them can be easily classified as ekde tiam/tiu evento, the subsequent expression marking a point in time, rather than a period.

This confirms my analysis of the difference between amiko de miaj lernejaj jaroj and amiko ekde miaj lernejaj jaroj.

I think that the point you were trying to make about the tense (past or present) of the subsequent verb is a bit of a red herring.

Changing from Mi multjare ne vidis lin to Mi multjare estas Esperantisto has no effect of the meaning of multjare - de multaj jaroj is in effect an equivalent of multjare.

tommjames:Nevertheless I do think it's a turn of phrase that can be a cause of doubt in some cases (you admitted that you yourself felt this when you first heard the expression).

Well, the usage of 'ekde du jaroj' didn't/doesn't cause me any misunderstanding as to the intended meaning. I was more surprised that a form similar to the German 'seit zwei Jahren' also exists in Esperanto, and this is clearly the case. The accepted form of '(jam) de du jaroj' demonstrates this.

tommjames:So in my view it would generally be better to do what Shlafer proposes and use "antaŭ", regardless of any perceived chance of misunderstanding with regards to continuation of the action into the present.

As far as I understand, the advice from the Academy was not that 'antaŭ' should necessarily be used to avoid such misunderstanding, but that one should use '(jam) de du jaroj' instead of 'ekde du jaroj.' See this:

Kial do oni uzu “ekde” anstataŭ “(jam) de” kaj tiel samtempe
duobligu la rimedon por esprimi saman signifon kaj
perdu la rimedon por distingi du malsamajn signifojn?!

- the problem I have with the above quote is that in Esperanto both of these concepts are indeed rendered by using the same word, namely 'de'. I suppose that for this reason, 'ekde' does not have a separate explanation in PMEG, but is rather included as a footnote in the explanation of 'de'.

tommjames:... but I would agree that there is a certain "semantic tension" there, as sudanglo puts it. Du jaroj has to be read as la komenca tempopunkto de du jaroj, or antaŭ du jaroj

I can understand that some people might experience a certain 'semantic tension' regarding 'ekde' in this context (particularly if they focus on the English word since), but I still don't understand why those same people wouldn't then feel the same tension in relation to 'Mi lernas Esperanton (jam) de du jaroj'.

Sudanglo tried to explain this in terms of 'characterisation', but this doesn't fully make sense to me. Surely the fundamental thinking behind '(jam) de du jaroj' equates to the German expression 'seit zwei Jahren'. If you focus on the English 'since two years', then of course it sounds weird, but '(jam) de du jaroj' shows that this is an acceptable concept in Esperanto.

Ŝi loĝis en Parizo de du jaroj = She had been living in Paris for two years = Sie wohnte seit zwei Jahren in Paris.

According to the Academy, there could be a misunderstanding if you change the above to:

"Ŝi loĝis en Parizo ekde du jaroj"

- the Academy suggests that someone might then interpret the above as meaning that she started living in Paris two years ago (from now). But, if one accepts that 'ekde' refers to a specific point in time, then surely that point of time shouldn't move, which is the case if you understand it in relation to NOW! So, there's surely no room for misunderstanding, certainly no more than if one were to replace 'ekde' by just 'de'. The point in time is clearly fixed in relation to the time indicated by the context of the sentence.

So again, everyone accepts '(jam) de', but I continue to be puzzled by the disapproval of 'ekde'. As PAG and PMEG point out, the addition of 'ek-' is just a means of highlighting the function of 'de' in the sentence, to make it stand out from other uses of 'de'.

sudanglo:This confirms my analysis of the difference between amiko de miaj lernejaj jaroj and amiko ekde miaj lernejaj jaroj.

I still don't really see how that comparison has any relevance. Both instances of 'de' relate to a noun, rather than to a verb.

sudanglo:
I think that the point you were trying to make about the tense (past or present) of the subsequent verb is a bit of a red herring.

Changing from Mi multjare ne vidis lin to Mi multjare estas Esperantisto has no effect of the meaning of multjare - de multaj jaroj is in effect an equivalent of multjare.

Yes, this was my attempt to work out what the Academy meant by a possible misunderstanding, but as I've now mentioned in a subsequent post, I'm not sure I see the problem any more.

Chainy:

tommjames:So in my view it would generally be better to do what Shlafer proposes and use "antaŭ", regardless of any perceived chance of misunderstanding with regards to continuation of the action into the present.

As far as I understand, the advice from the Academy was not that 'antaŭ' should be used to avoid such misunderstanding, but that one should use '(jam) de du jaroj' instead of 'ekde du jaroj.'

Well yes, that's why I used the word "regardless"

However Shlafer does say oni povas tute eviti la riskon de miskompreno uzante la esprimon “ekde antaŭ N jaroj”.

I wouldn't use antaŭ to "avoid confusion", as I don't really see any confusion to be avoided. I must confess, I'm not entirely sure I grasp what Shlafer is referring to there. I would just use the helping antaŭ on the grounds of general semantic clarity; when referencing a point in time, actually supply a point in time rather than relying on 'subkompreno'.

Chainy:but I still don't understand why those same people wouldn't then feel the same tension in relation to 'Mi lernas Esperanton (jam) de du jaroj'.

I hear you. Personally I feel that ekde, jam de, and simply de alone, each have a semantic leaning towards a point in time, though I do feel that it's somewhat stronger in the case of ekde, for some reason. My guess would be that tension results from the relative frequency of these expressions in Esperanto, as well as influence from national languages.

I note from Shlafer's response that some languages (French and German are given as examples) use the same word for ekde and jam de, but that English is not among them. Sudanglo also pointed out that ekde with a duration is far less common than ekde with a point in time. Surely that has an effect too.

As an English speaker I am mystified by adverbs. Yes, they exist, but unless one is a grammarian or linguist, who cares? To most American speakers, there is no distinction between the phrases, “I am good,” and “I am well.” I share this obliviousness for the need for adverbs. With the exception of the “ly” suffix, I am seldom aware of when I use a word or phrase as an adverb. (Is “seldom” an adverb? Is the phrase, “as an adverb” an adverb? ) This is fine for colloquial English, but when it comes to Esperanto, I am at a distinct disadvantage. Adverbs are used all over the place. I have trouble on both ends of the language. As a speaker and writer and I seldom incorporate them into my usage as I should, and as a reader/listener, when I do encounter adverbs, and they are everywhere, my comprehension falters. Can anyone recommend an approach to how I can better employ adverbs and understand their usage?

Adverbs aren't that well defined a class of words in most languages. In this, Esperanto will actually be your friend, given that almost all adverbs will simply be those words that end in "e". It'll help you separate adverbs (e-words) from other classes of words like adjectives. And take heart, because it'll help you draw comparisons with English, and learn more about English too (because you'll learn where Esperanto and English are similar/dissimilar).

If the only other language you're going to learn for a little while is going to be Esperanto, then I'd mostly ignore the word "adverb" and its definitions and uses in English, and instead focus on "e-words". Learn Esperanto to the level that you can read PMEG passably, and read its nice clear and simple definitions about what you can and cannot do with "e-words" (and later on, what you can and cannot do with that small number of words that can act like "e-words" but don't end in "e" ).

Then when it comes to English, you'll start to see parallels and differences between "e-words" and "ly" words and other adverbs you might recognise. You'll get a feel for how an adverb can function. But it'll be a little different whatever language you learn of course.

A good starting rule of thumb may be:

1. a-words describe o-words (bruna ĉapelo)
2. e-words cannot describe o-words, but they can describe everything else.
3. Usually e-words describe verbs (words ending in -i -as -is -us -u) or the whole sentence in a general way. (li rapide kuris / miaopinie, ŝi estas bela)

ofnayim:To most American speakers, there is no distinction between the phrases, “I am good,” and “I am well.”

That is absolutely untrue.

An American is very, very unlikely to respond to the question "Are you evil?" with the answer "No, I am well."

RiotNrrd:

ofnayim:To most American speakers, there is no distinction between the phrases, “I am good,” and “I am well.”

That is absolutely untrue.

An American is very, very unlikely to respond to the question "Are you evil?" with the answer "No, I am well."

Were you being satirical? Well it was funny anyway.

But in the sense of meaning 'I am well' 'all's fine with me' I'd agree that in (certain parts of.?) the U.S. both terms are completely interchangeable.