sudanglo:Oh, the test of my position is quite simple in theory, though time consuming to carry out.

1. Search the Tekstaro for instances of X-us, then change to estus X-inta and see if that changes the meaning or renders meaningless.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why are you suggesting this?

I thought the whole point of the other side of this debate is that -us is tense neutral. Obviously if you substitute a particular tense, for a word that works with multiple tenses, it won't work most of the time.

It's like if one side argues a duck is an animal, and the other side says no, a duck is a duck only, just go back to any text that says "animal" and substitute "duck" and see if it makes sense - obviously it won't, most of the time.

On your second point - compound forms are usually avoided in Esperanto. Normally we use them only when it's (for whatever reason) especially important to be very precise about the time. Therefore, if someone uses "mi estas iranta", there must be a particular reason why this exact tense is important, otherwise someone would have said simply "mi iras", and it wouldn't necessarily be advisable to use "mi iras" in place of "mi estas iranta". Wouldn't you say the same thing for "mi estus irinta" or "Mi estus ironta" or "Mi estus iranta", as opposed to the simpler form "mi irus"?

In my mind, no one is saying that "mi estus irinta" is wrong. Just that in most cases you don't need it (just like in most cases we don't need "mi estas irinta", we would need it only in a few cases)

Perhaps one could say that -US in itself is time neutral, while the irreality that -US is intended to express is unsymmetrically distributed between past and future.

Forigite

I'm not a grammarian or linguist; just a native speaker. But I would say that the third sentence in the first set is grammatically incorrect. If it isn't, then it sure is nonstandard. It has the sound of a dialect to it, at the very least.

I'd say the other sentences in the first set match more or less equivalently to the second set. If there's a difference between them, I don't see it.

English is a very strange language in that it is constructed both phonologically and syntactically in a manner that makes it easy for a native speaker to detect a non-native speaker, even when the non-native speakers seems to be following the rules. Take the words: photograph, photographer and photographic as an example. In native speech the first "o" has three very different phonological qualities that are hard for a non-native speaker to detect. The same is true of the three sentences that we are discussing. I agree with RiotNrrd that the third sentence is, for a native speaker, ungrammatical (as linguists say), though the first two sentences sound more "academic" (or learned) when the subjunctive is used though the indicative will, in deed, do the trick. Here: is another example: I do not want that we be late. The sentence: * I do not want that I be late - is ungrammatical. The native speaker will opt for: I do not want to be late. Even though the two constructions seem to be parallel (syntactically) they are not for the native speaker. This is one reason that I argue for Esperanto. And this is just the kind of "ungrammatical" English spoken by European politicians in the media. They don't get the difference and they thus use, as linguists would say, "marked" sentences.
Hyperboreus, your English is excellent - please don't misunderstand me - but you will only be able to "iron out" these "non-nativisms" by living many, many years surrounded by (educated) native English speakers. None of us can explain logically why "I don't want that I be late" is ungrammatical - it just is and upon hearing/reading it, we immediately classify the user as "non-native". (I must add, that I speak, read, write and hear Spanish every day but I will never be taken for a native speaker. And this after 20 years of study and first-hand contact with Spanish speakers.)

Forigite

Forigite

As a native speaker brought up in the UK I pretty much agree with what Riot says, with the reservation that to my ears the forms 'that the troops be' and 'that everyone fill' sound more educated - perhaps more so with the former than the latter.

Hyperboreus:A bit offtopic but still related:

Is it necessary in English to use the present subjunctive (he be, he go, he have, etc) in order do express possibility/volition or is the indicative mood enough?

The population demands that the troops be withdrawn.
It is important that everyone fill in this form.
I don't know whether he be honest or not.

Would it be correct, too, to say:
The population demands that the troops are withdrawn.
It is important that everyone fills in this form.
I don't know whether he is honest or not.

"I don't know whether he be honest or not" is not correct in English. We don't use the subjunctive for "doubt" situations like Spanish does. Just like Esperanto doesn't use the -u form in sentences like "Cuando vaya a la tienda, te compré dulces¨ When I go to the store, I'll buy you some candy. E-e: Kiam mi irOS al la vendejo, mi aĉetos por vi sukraĵojn. (actually we don't in English either.)

orthohawk:Just like Esperanto doesn't use the -u form in sentences like "Cuando vaya a la tienda, te compré dulces¨ When I go to the store, I'll buy you some candy. E-e: Kiam mi irOS al la vendejo, mi aĉetos por vi sukraĵojn.

"Cuando vaya a la tienda, te compraré dulces".

Amike.