darkweasel:
I marked the important parts in bold. Of course this is an official document, but it does not officialize the sufiksaĉo. It just says that it is no longer wrong to use it.

(A sufficiently unfortunate decision by itself.)

You seem to be nitpicking, and ultimately it doesn't matter how you interpret the minor details. The Akademio clearly recognises -io as a commonly used alternative to -ujo, so there doesn't seem to be a problem. Everyone's happy, both forms are out there in the wild, it doesn't matter how much theorising we do, it's up to Esperanto speakers to decide. Most likely, both will always exist so we might as well get used to it!

What bothered me about your initial post is that it's somewhat misleading to just say that '-uj is still today the only official choice'. This implies that -io is wrong and should be frowned upon, which is clearly not the case as the official documents show.

This topic always brings to mind the title of that famous book "Rusoj loĝas en Rusujo". Was the choice of that title a deliberate wind-up? I mean, virtually all the Russian learners of Esperanto that I come across (as a lingvohelpanto) use either 'Rusio', or perhaps sometimes 'Ruslando'. I really can't remember one of them using 'Rusujo', and this is despite the fact that all three forms are listed in the Lernu dictionary (Russian-EO). Russians find '-i-' useful in words such as 'rusia' (российский) and rusa (русский). It seems that countries such as Russia are a strong source of support for -io.

Regarding the Lernu dictionary, I've just been checking the German and Russian versions. I typed in five or six European countries just as an experiment and on each occasion both forms were given (-ujo and -io). This is probably a good idea as it reflects real usage, and it leaves it open for users to decide for themselves.

In the case of the English version of the Lernu dictionary, I found that things were in bit of a muddle. In most of the cases, only -ujo was listed, but then in some random cases there was only the -io form!

To be honest, I've noticed this in the past regarding the English dictionary, but I generally didn't touch the entries for countries, unless there was a glaring typo or something... I know that some people get rather emotional about the subject. But, it only seems fair to include both forms....

Chainy:
What bothered me about your initial post is that it's somewhat misleading to just say that '-uj is still today the only official choice'. This implies that -io is wrong and should be frowned upon, which is clearly not the case as the official documents show.

Well, I did not actually mean to imply that. However, official is official, and unofficial (though recognized and common) is unofficial, and that is what "I" for country names is - it has been added to no official addition to the UV (and I pray that it never will). Unofficial does not by itself mean wrong, there are a lot of commonly used unofficial words (some are listed at Radikoj oficialigindaj), and calling these unofficial is not calling them wrong, just presenting facts.

darkweasel:Yes.

→ Dato de decidoj

I translate the important parts:

In 1923 the Language Comittee decided to remove the element ANALOGI/ from UV (added in 1OA). At the same occasion it added instead the element ANALOG/. There are however some unclear aspects about the removal of ANALOGI/.

In 1974 (8OA) the Academy of Esperanto removed from UV the (adjectival) element KONCENTR/ ("koncentra" = "concentric") added in 1OA and instead added the homonymous, but verbal element KONCENTR/ ("koncentri"). Note that this was then not a mere category difference but two roots with completely different meanings.

At least Helmut Welger (died in 2008) interpreted, and Bernhard Pabst interprets the "Antauparolo" in such a way that it is prohibited to deofficialize also those words and rules that have been officially added to the Fundamento after 1905.

In a recent workshop on Esperanto grammar, I asked Academy member Bertilo Wennergren about this. Here is my blog on that - however, in Esperanto.

I think Esperanto community is matured and sufficiently creative not to have fear any kind of self-destroying Ido-Schism.

lagtendisto:I think Esperanto community is matured and sufficiently creative not to have fear any kind of self-destroying Ido-Schism.

Maybe. However, how does your thinking help to find the right answer to the question whether deofficialization is in accordance with the Antauparolo?

akueck:However, how does your thinking help to find the right answer to the question whether deofficialization is in accordance with the Antauparolo?

Is there really still some question on demand? I mean you did dig out some thread what was discussed in 2012 when even initial thread opener wasn't interested to discuss further.

lagtendisto:

akueck:However, how does your thinking help to find the right answer to the question whether deofficialization is in accordance with the Antauparolo?

Is there really still some question on demand?

Yes, namely this: Is deofficialization of an officialized word or rule in accordance with the Antauparolo?

lagtendisto:I have no intention to ofend you or something like that.

In my previous message, I just asked how your thinking (i. e. what you had written on 2016-11-06 14:05:24) helps to find the right answer to that question.

I would appreciate if you or anyone else let us know anything that will help to find the right answer.

akueck:

lagtendisto:

akueck:However, how does your thinking help to find the right answer to the question whether deofficialization is in accordance with the Antauparolo?

Is there really still some question on demand?

Yes, namely this: Is deofficialization of an officialized word or rule in accordance with the Antauparolo?

Okay, I got it. You're on some kind of conlang purism compaign like executor (Nachlassverwalter). Thats not that kind of creative vitality I did encounter at Esperanto (offline-) community.