Ganove:

sudanglo:

Ganove:The problem is no one can confirm any assumption about Esperanto, due to the lack of a native speaker community

Linguists' piffle.

Well, this is easily said but why do you think so?

Linguists commonly put forward the idea that native speaker usage is the ultimate criterion as to whether something is correct or well-formed.

But this idea takes no account of languages like Esperanto, where consistency and logic have important roles to play, and where the best speakers are not denaskaj.

Even in national languages, it is not that simple. Not every native speaker has an equal vote, and issues of clarity and self-consistency and logic can enter into discussions of whether something is correct.

Nowadays, with the existence of searchable corpuses for Esperanto (the Tekstaro is not the only one) many of the disputes in the Lernu Forum are resolved by appeal to examples in the corpus. But equally, you will find arguments based on logic and consistency.

The big difference between Esperanto and the national languages is that in principle a more logical expression can more readily over-ride some actual usage, and if you had the time I expect you could find examples in the history of the evolution of the language.

The thing to be aware of is when arguments based on logic, that may at first sight seem sound, are actually based on a false theory of how Esperanto works.

hebda999:Then how can you be "dum" a meal? These "antaŭ", "post"... are all about time. An action takes time. A meal takes a place.

Are you trying to tell us you can't say "during the meal" in English?

This is quite crazy. You are discussing a perfectly natural Esperanto word and using words of another language as arguments. Those words might or might not cover parts of what "manĝo" means, but they are not the same word. Your worst try at translating "manĝo" was "the food".

Nobody (I mean nobody who knows Esperanto) has ever had any difficulty in understanding or translating the word "manĝo", at least not in context, in a real sentence. And even if the word were impossible to translate it would not be a problem of Esperanto, but of the other language.

sudanglo:Linguists commonly put forward the idea that native speaker usage is the ultimate criterion as to whether something is correct or well-formed.

But this idea takes no account of languages like Esperanto, where consistency and logic have important roles to play, and where the best speakers are not denaskaj.

Even in national languages, it is not that simple. Not every native speaker has an equal vote, and issues of clarity and self-consistency and logic can enter into discussions of whether something is correct.

Nowadays, with the existence of searchable corpuses for Esperanto (the Tekstaro is not the only one) many of the disputes in the Lernu Forum are resolved by appeal to examples in the corpus. But equally, you will find arguments based on logic and consistency.

The big difference between Esperanto and the national languages is that in principle a more logical expression can more readily over-ride some actual usage, and if you had the time I expect you could find examples in the history of the evolution of the language.

The thing to be aware of is when arguments based on logic, that may at first sight seem sound, are actually based on a false theory of how Esperanto works.

I agree completely. Not only Esperanto is heavily influenced by logical arguments put forward by non-native speakers.
The situatuation is, and has been, the same for many natural languages. Also, some of the influential native speakers have been abroad for such long time that it can be questioned if their nativeness is enough to authenticate their own writing.
I am thinking about some Nordic students at the Wittenberg University during the time of Martin Luther, and more recent translators and authors of many African languages. In some cases they have been followed by new generations of language policemen, so that native-inflence has never been strong.