In the thread on collocations, I was trying to make the relevant point that there are language features in Esperanto which stem directly from the raison d'être of Esperanto, in respect of regularity and the avoidance of usage determined expressions which are not transparent.

But when I tried to make the point that the philosphy of Rauxmismo, which turns it back on the original purpose of Esperanto, potentially undermines the future development of Esperanto, allowing the language to follow the haphazard developmental path of the national languages, I was sat on with red ink.

But isn't it logically the case that if you treat Esperanto as just the plaything of the Esperantists, the language could wander off in unpredictable directions?

The thing that keeps Esperanto on the straight and narrow is the idea that one day it may yet achieve its original purpose.

Am I right, or am I wrong?

Criticism of Raumism is fine. I don't see any taboo in that. It just needs to be in an appropriately-titled thread. Have at it!

sudanglo:the philosphy of Rauxmismo, which turns it back on the original purpose of Esperanto, potentially undermines the future development of Esperanto, allowing the language to follow the haphazard developmental path of the national languages

This doesn't relate to the idea of looking for two- or three-word combinations in Esperanto that appear frequently, so that you can practice words in a context where they usually appear, as a way of making it a bit easier to learn a language. A collocation isn't a colloquialism. It refers to the idea that you will hear something like "spekti filmon" much more than something like "spekti panon", and some people might find value in the idea of learning "spekti" together with one or two words that are likely to be used with it. If you disagree with that idea, of course you are free to argue that in the other thread.

Perhaps your thinking links a wide variety of different topics to the Raumism, but I think that most people simply don't make the link between Raumism and using frequent word combinations to help in language learning.

sudanglo:In the thread on collocations, I was trying to make the relevant point that there are language features in Esperanto which stem directly from the raison d'être of Esperanto, in respect of regularity and the avoidance of usage determined expressions which are not transparent.

But when I tried to make the point that the philosphy of Rauxmismo, which turns it back on the original purpose of Esperanto, potentially undermines the future development of Esperanto, allowing the language to follow the haphazard developmental path of the national languages, I was sat on with red ink.

But isn't it logically the case that if you treat Esperanto as just the plaything of the Esperantists, the language could wander off in unpredictable directions?

The thing that keeps Esperanto on the straight and narrow is the idea that one day it may yet achieve its original purpose.

Am I right, or am I wrong?

I think you may be receiving the punishment for all of the way off-topic posts as of late. I did not see your posts in the other thread before they were removed, but I can see how your question of Raŭmism may be in need of its own thread.

As for this question, I would think that the regulating bodies of Esperanto would hold true its original path regardless of the membership's own philosophical leanings. But I would say that a religious adherence to Raŭmism by the majority of Esperantists would certainly not be a good thing. I doubt this will ever happen, though, as I would not bet on there ever being many beginner Raŭmists. I'd say the original purpose of Esperanto is its strongest lure, with its facilitation of foreign national language learning coming in a close second. I don't personally understand why someone would put in the effort to study Esperanto if he/she did not at some level believe in its fundamental goal. I would wonder if a Raŭmist might preserve Esperanto's "straight and narrow" path simply because it is a defining trait of Esperanto that is worthy of preserving?

sudanglo:But isn't it logically the case that if you treat Esperanto as just the plaything of the Esperantists, the language could wander off in unpredictable directions?

The thing that keeps Esperanto on the straight and narrow is the idea that one day it may yet achieve its original purpose.

I'd be more afraid of Esperanto being turned into a plaything if it achieves its original purpose. What's going to happen if its use is imposed by government agencies, school systems, the UN, etc.?

Probably a massive government-imposed reform that would leave it unrecognizable. Cleansed of all that is deemed to be politically incorrect, Eurocentric, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.

I got into Esperanto because of the poetry and art. I have very little interest in its use as an international language; it's just not a goal that excites me.

As far as Raumists leading to rampant language change and irregularity, there is already some irregularity in Esperanto and it doesn't seem to be much of a problem. It's at least easy irregularity. If Esperanto is a living language it will change; that's what living languages do. I suspect, since it's a second language for the vast majority of speakers, it will not change very quickly or develop difficult irregularities. For Esperanto to evolve something like the six principal parts of ancient Greek verbs or the plurals of Arabic would require native speakers, I imagine, and quite a lot of them over a long period of time. I would say that the fastest way for that to happen is for Esperanto to become a universal language. That would lead to a larger body of L1 speakers over time (probably learning it at the same time as another L1), and thus lead to language change. That's my guess.

One other interest I have in Esperanto is professional. As a linguist, I think Esperanto provides an interesting laboratory to observe language change in a controlled environment. I'm actually kicking around the idea for a paper along those lines.

Bruso:

sudanglo:But isn't it logically the case that if you treat Esperanto as just the plaything of the Esperantists, the language could wander off in unpredictable directions?

The thing that keeps Esperanto on the straight and narrow is the idea that one day it may yet achieve its original purpose.

I'd be more afraid of Esperanto being turned into a plaything if it achieves its original purpose. What's going to happen if its use is imposed by government agencies, school systems, the UN, etc.?

Probably a massive government-imposed reform that would leave it unrecognizable. Cleansed of all that is deemed to be politically incorrect, Eurocentric, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.

I would personally be fine with many changes if it guarantees international governmental support at all levels, but I believe that its use must be chosen instead of forced. Since our world is still dominated by capitalism it will have to make economic sense to be truly accepted, and I can't see that happening while America has so much economic power. I personally don't see Esperanto or similar languages being adopted until we grow up a lot more as a civilization, if that even happens.

kaŝperanto, do you believe, that Esperanto does not make economic sense? My opinion has always been that an easy, constructed or even not constructed (like English) IAL makes very much economic sense. I see evidence of that everywhere I look.

One really much argues for imposition of English because of economic sense.

EDIT: yes, sorry for off-topic. Someone start a new topic, please. I don't have time now.

Peccavimus:One other interest I have in Esperanto is professional. As a linguist, I think Esperanto provides an interesting laboratory to observe language change in a controlled environment. I'm actually kicking around the idea for a paper along those lines.

FYI you should consider applying to the Esperantic Studies Foundation (www.esperantic.org) for funding if you are interested in doing scholarly work on the topic of Esperanto. They are very interested in funding such studies, and also in building up their network of Esperanto-related research contacts.

Oijos:kaŝperanto, do you believe, that Esperanto does not make economic sense? My opinion has always been that an easy, constructed or even not constructed (like English) IAL makes very much economic sense. I see evidence of that everywhere I look.

One really much argues for imposition of English because of economic sense.

EDIT: yes, sorry for off-topic. Someone start a new topic, please. I don't have time now.

I personally do, especially since teaching it would be much more cost-effective than teaching national foreign languages as we do now, among many other arguments. But, no matter how much better Esperanto is, the rest of the world will continue to use English to follow the "industry standard". I suppose you could say we don't have market penetration or something along those lines. Recall when Android first entered into the smartphone OS business, and even more so Windoze phones , where the initial cost of adopting was huge (not as many apps, not as good of support, etc.).
There's a reason we don't all drive nuclear-powered cars that never need gas: the initial investment cost.

To be somewhat on-topic, I would fear what the "market" would do to the language more than any governmental reforms of it. The Rauxmist view in the global adoption case would allow any amount of alterations and irregularities to pop up, because its current use is then still enough to justify learning it.

Every Saturday, I attend Turkish language lessons - along with four or five other brave souls. None of us think that we are going to get rich by learning Turkish. In fact, there are very few Turkish speakers around our area. We would have a larger group of Haitian Kreyol speakers to talk to if we would learn their language. Some of the people in my class don't even speak Spanish (really, the second language of our region) - or English all that well. But they are studying Turkish. That, in my opinion, is a bit like Raŭmismo. I like Turkish because I identify with Turkish speakers - even though many of them are very different from me. I in no way am a follower of Islam. I eat pork (sometimes) and drink alcohol (well, most Turks do, too). I would like to visit Turkey or even live there for a while - but even if not, I like studying Turkish. The other people in my class are just as "strangulaj" as I am - we even have bright red T-shirts with Turkey written across the front! We will sing at the local Turkish Festival in March. I guess, in Esperanto, one would say "ke mi raŭmismas" - but, farketmez! (so what?!?!). I enjoy it. Maybe one day the pan-Turkish movement will take off and Turkish will become the most international language of the world (finevenkismo turka). Who knows?