Roberto12:Arie de Jong's proposed (but later ignored) inclusive first-person-plural pronoun was "ogs" not "ods". And the singular form of this pronoun, by the way, means "you or I", which I think is a nice little innovation.

Is there anything of Zamenhof's that's been ignored? Other than, I guess, "ci", which I really don't see much of in the Fundamento, so it looks like he ignored it himself ...

(I never understood why de Jong got rid of Schleyer's jussive ending in -öz. It looks useful and is hardly complicated).

Cedol gudo, o kirilo81

"Obas" is a genitive pronoun and "obsik" is a possessive adjective, and the key difference between them is that "obas" can't accept (additional) case or number endings. Thus, for a standalone adjective/pronoun, you need to use "obsik" in order to display its role in the phrase. For example, "ili amas niajn" is rendered as "löfons obsikis".

Regarding the pruning of the "-öz" jussive, when you consider that you're still left with TWO command forms (imperative "-öd", optative "-ös" ), it has to be a good decision. As things are, Volapükans never have the trouble that Esperantists sometimes do in distinguishing between "do!" and "ought to do".

In the matter of things dropped from Esperanto, you could argue that the garglers' consonant Ĥ is one of them.

Bruso:

Roberto12:Arie de Jong's proposed (but later ignored) inclusive first-person-plural pronoun was "ogs" not "ods". And the singular form of this pronoun, by the way, means "you or I", which I think is a nice little innovation.

Is there anything of Zamenhof's that's been ignored? Other than, I guess, "ci", which I really don't see much of in the Fundamento, so it looks like he ignored it himself ...

Zamenhof himself expressly recommended not using "ci", so if you want to call it "ignored", then it's ignored at his own request

Bruso:
Is there anything of Zamenhof's that's been ignored? Other than, I guess, "ci", which I really don't see much of in the Fundamento, so it looks like he ignored it himself ...

I think there are some words in the Fundamento that never caught on, and are now regarded as archaic. I wish I could remember what they are. I've been...lapsed for a year or so, and I've forgotten some of these nuggets that I used to know.

orthohawk:I was told once by a linguistics professor (PhD in Linguistics; how he managed that without knowing the following fact is beyond me) that Esperanto couldn't be a "real" language because "real" languages don't put the plural marker before the case marker. I had to laugh in his face and dared him to tell a Georgian or a Turk their languages weren't "real"....yep, they do exactly what Esperanto does: plural marker before the case markers.

I honestly find languages that put plural markers AFTER case markings far stranger, being interested in those languages (Turkish, etc). But since I'm more a conlanger than I was last time I was on these forums, nothing surprises me now.

As for this topic, I'm coming in late, but I find that for vocab, regularity sorta goes out the window. For example, Japanese, Indonesian, and many languages of that region have fairly "regular" verb systems, but the pronouns, well, they make Esperanto's pronouns look just as simple as Volapuk pronouns.

Regularity in grammar is far easier for a language to achieve than regularity in vocabulary, since vocabulary always changes according to the will of the people. In an IAL style language, that means hundreds upon thousands of words have the potential to enter the language (they don't necessarily do so though for reasons I won't get into, like demographics etc). On the plus side, each new word in a language increases how expressive you can be, which is sort of an artistic bonus. But this affects all language, so I find it easier to just accept things.