Rugxdoma:

sudanglo:The strange thing is that even when you have seen the difference articulated and seen how it fits a whole range of sentences using the present perfect or the past, there is still a sense of wonder of how you can be regularly and most consistently expressing this difference without any explicit awareness of what you are doing.

Well, when we all learn our first language, we aren't exposed to the rules of grammar. Grammar is intuitive to us based upon the years of exposure to how people say things and as a result we can pick up on anything that doesn't sound right. This intuitive knowledge can be seen in many aspects of our lives, whether it's knowing something is wrong with someone we care about, or knowing when to change gears in the car and so on. Combined with this, I think most people do not have a very good grasp of grammar. I know personally that I had no idea what prepositions, verbs, adjectives or adverbs were till sometime in my late teens when I began learning Japanese. I only recently learned about correlatives and participles by going through the esperanto grammar.

sudanglo:

It seems as if Chomsky only considers the unconscious rules really worthy of the linguists' attention.

This is a very interesting point, which perhaps can be made generally not just in relation to Chomsky.

Obviously when all native speakers of Language A can correctly articulate the difference in what is being expressed in the usage of form A and form B in that language, then there is no mystery, no sense of wonder, no puzzle. The linguist's theory then is no more than everybody knows. The Emperor is truly revealed as having no clothes.

It may well be that part of the reason that Esperanto is sometimes not highly regarded by language professionals is that it is thought that everything in the language is explicit. There is nothing to explain. Thus having a theory about Esperanto would be like having a theory about, say, the rules of Monopoly.

One thing I think is probable. If there are indeed unconscious rules which are systematically followed by experienced speakers then you would expect false theories, or rules with fairly plentiful exceptions, such as are produced concerning usage of the English verb - even by teachers of English and authors of grammar books.

Edit: the link you gave Smithy takes us to a classical example of a false theory and in no way explains correctly why we don't say Shut the window, shall you

Actually, I think the link does describe why we'd say, 'shut the window, will you?' Although personally I could imagine myself saying 'shall you', so everyone's obviously different (i.e. we all have slightly different language maps in our heads, but they're similar enough that we can all communicate and make sense of each other!). I wouldn't naturally be inclined to say that in my speech anyway though, I'd be more inclined to say 'can you' or some other construction.

I agree that 'prescriptivist grammarians' will come up with 'false theories' when there's a natural language environment, because languages, like all things, naturally evolve. So that's definitely the case with formal rules in English, and other languages, that most people don't really follow. Which is why linguists are wary of making those sorts of prescriptions about how people should speak, and prefer to just watch how they actually speak.

I think that we say: "shut the window, would'ja?"

I don't want to get bogged down with a discussion of shall versus will, but in passing I note that even though there have been comments about Americans not using shall, the American constitution is full of shalls. (Of course specifying to the American president what he shall do is quite different from predicting what he will do.)

The will/shall issue (I could have mentioned others) is just an example of how native speakers are unaware of the regular way that they use the language.

The more interesting issue is what regularities there are in the way that experienced Esperantists use the language, and which they are unable to articulate - or often articulate falsely.

Is there nothing to 'discover' about Esperanto - nothing clever to say about the language, that might be of academic interest?

There seem to to be two schools of thought, or notions expressed - that Esperanto is now like any other language, and on the other hand that Esperanto is simple because it systematically follows certain explicitly understood ('logical')) rules.

But if I had to pick on area where the theory is wrong and the reality of usage can be accounted for in a description that is more embracing, I would choose the theory of compound word formation based on the idea of unique root class.

I suspect too that the actual usage of verb endings (such as -as and -us) is frequently misdescribed.

Is there not a translation of the American Constitution in Esperanto? This site gives only a few languages.

In the French version they have used the future for 'shall' (not very nuanced). In the Bible Thou shalt not kill becomes Ne mortigu (bit tricky for the owners of abattoirs). Perhaps Ne murdu might be better.

The Constitution of the United States of America was written in 1774. The language we use has changed quite a bit since then. My ancestors were not even here at that time - they lived in what is today Slovakia and Germany. In many of our national discussions of the provisions of the Constitution there is also often mention of the fact that one of the reasons for the difficulties of interpretation is the change in mentalities and notions since then. It is a constitution written for an agricultural country, thinly populated, still dependent on slave labor and still a colony of a foreign power. Those who wrote it were mostly the sons of colonists of that power.

sudanglo:The more interesting issue is what regularities there are in the way that experienced Esperantists use the language, and which they are unable to articulate - or often articulate falsely.

Is there nothing to 'discover' about Esperanto - nothing clever to say about the language, that might be of academic interest?

There seem to to be two schools of thought, or notions expressed - that Esperanto is now like any other language, and on the other hand that Esperanto is simple because it systematically follows certain explicitly understood ('logical')) rules.

I don't think Esperanto is like every language, but I don't think that everything in it is explicitly understood either.
All esperantists have to struggle with the stubborn matter of (mostly semantic) irregularities, but our struggle is mitigated by the statement by its inventor that everything that is not contrary to the Fundamento must be accepted as correct. Speakers of other languages do not have such a wide authorisation. Within this permissive framework concious and unconcious pattern can be explored - both calcues from national languages and some genuine Esperanto patterns.

What has that got to do with the price of eggs, Robb?

My (modern) lease says, for example, the Landlord shall as soon as convenient after the expiry of each year of term ... . This is precisely the usage of 'shall' as in the American Constitution.