efilzeo:Do you have a link? I wanna see if I've been that bad.

Hmm. Just finished skimming through that thread, and I see now that I’ve conflated the inexplicable rage in Novatago’s posts with the Borat-like assumptions of homosexuality in yours.

Not sure how that happened, but I should slap on some orthopedic shoes, because I stand corrected.

nornen:Here apparently our opinions diverge a bit. I wouldn't draw the line between experienced and unexperienced speakers, but solely between native speakers and non-native speakers, no matter how long they have spoken the language and how long they have lived immersed in it.

We indeed seem to differ, which is interesting. I base my opinion that acquiring a feeling for the language is possible as a L2 speaker on three main facts.

1/ In Indonesia, the common language Bahasa Indonesia is in the interesting situation that 70% of its speakers are non-native. The native speakers, due to being outnumbered, have only a marginal authority on what is good Indonesian. The trend-setters are largely the non-natives.

2/ This applies even more to Esperanto where the population of native speakers is so insignificant that their authority is little to none.

3/ If non native speakers of Esperanto were unable to get a "feeling" for the language, then the only innovations they would bring into the language should be influences from their native languages. Yet, although it does happen, it's not the only kind of innovation that can be observed. As Claude Piron has brillantly noted, such a sentence as la estraro ree kaj ree emas igi tiun etan aĵon tro grava would have been impossible in early Esperanto. The tendency to use affixes as full-fledged roots (re- -em- -ig- -et- and -aĵ- in this sentence) is a relatively recent development that wouldn't have taken place if the Esperantists, largely Europeans in earlier stages of Esperanto history, had only followed the substratum of their native languages. Instead they seem to have somehow understood the isolating nature of Esperanto, where the smallest elements that convey meaning can stand alone in a sentence.

orthohawk:

nornen:I am quite convinced that a language is a living thing, and that if it cannot (or must not) change with the times, it will die.

Before I make my primary comment let me clarify: When we speak of "change" in a language, there are actually two things being talked about: 1. Addition of new vocabulary (and with the evidence of Latin and its introducing "modern" vocabulary for such things as "motorcycle" et al, we can see that even dead languages "change.") and
2. Actual transformation of grammar rules.
Every language changes in sense #1; without this kind of change it will die, but as I said above, even 'dead' languages undergo this type of change.
NO language (including Esperanto) can willy nilly change in sense #2 without an uproar and without the tacit approval of the body of fluent users. To see an example of this in English, one only has to look at the reactions I get when I use "thee" as a (GASP!!!) SUBJECT pronoun (oh, the horror!!!!) and its use with (what is now, only) the 3rd person form of the verb.

I agree with you on both points. However, considering the -icx- that started this whole issue, I fail to see how -icx- affects the grammar (morphology, syntax and phonology). As I see it, it affects the lexicon and that's it. Please explain what the difference between introducing forum' and icx' is?

Forumo introduces a brand new concept that Esperanto didn't have before. This -icx travesty introduces an unnecessary synonym, doesn't work with established words like nepo, and changes the gender system. Introducing it would be like declaring that -e is the new Spanish masculine and so mujere means man now. It's just absurd.

AllenHartwell:Forumo introduces a brand new concept that Esperanto didn't have before. This -icx travesty introduces an unnecessary synonym, doesn't work with established words like nepo, and changes the gender system. Introducing it would be like declaring that -e is the new Spanish masculine and so mujere means man now. It's just absurd.

First of all, the word "mujere" does not exist in Spanish. And "jefe" (ending in -e) sure means "male boss" (vs "jefa" ). Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

Second, I was not aware that Esperanto had a grammatical gender (genus). No doubt, the signifié of certain lexemes is always a male person, but this has nothing to do with grammatical gender.

Third, considering your bullet-headed approach to neologisms: forum' figures neither in the Foundation nor in the Universal Dictionary. Hence, it has never been introduced.

You're wrong. That's all there is to it. It's not me saying this either. It's the overwhelming majority of Esperantists. I think Erinja already settled this a long time ago. You can use non-standard forms and words. Nobody can stop you. But that doesn't mean that anyone else will necessarily understand you, nor does it mean that they aren't just as free to mock you for saying nepicxo all the time. All it's going to do is mark you as a self-created outcast and force you to spend all your time talking and arguing about how you talk rather than expressing what you have to say.

AllenHartwell:You're wrong. That's all there is to it.

You have convinced me again. I couldn't possibly beat your argumentation.

AllenHartwell:All it's going to do is mark you as a self-created outcast

Isn't that what learning Esperanto does already?

And further, are you aware that "nepiĉo" is not a dirty word according to the Foundation of Esperanto or the Academy? "Piĉo" is a neologism invented by Peter Peneter (the same guy who thought "mava" was a word) and never officialized. By your own standards, it isn't Esperanto; it's treason for which people might as well go learn Ido. (In fact, Kalocsay/Peneter did study Ido at one point.)

and force you to spend all your time talking and arguing about how you talk rather than expressing what you have to say.

If you would invest half the time you spend arguing about proper Esperanto into learning Esperanto, you would probably not need to be having this conversation in English right now. I wish you best of luck with learning Esperanto and I'm sorry you've been told such simplistic things about it by people who clearly have agendas.

AllenHartwell: But that doesn't mean that anyone else will necessarily understand you, nor does it mean that they aren't just as free to mock you for saying nepicxo all the time.

Please stop trying to muddy the waters by making false assertions about the use of icx.

It has been explained many times on this forum that the existing male based words would remain untouched and that new synonymns conforming to the icx standard would be introduced.

For example, patro would continue to mean father, genotoricxo would also mean father, and genitoro would mean parent.

The word nepo would continue to mean nephew, a new word using the icx standard, "X-icxo" would be introduced to also mean nephew, and a neutral form "X" would mean "neice or nephew".

The "legacy code" with all it's exceptions would be undisturbed, but bypassed by a new subroutine with no exceptions that users could choose to use or not.

leporinjo:Are you aware...

So refreshing to read a post by someone who has some actual facts backing him up.

Plus:

leporinjo:

AllenHartwell:All it's going to do is mark you as a self-created outcast

Isn't that what learning Esperanto does already?[/quote]Well done, Leporinjo. Well done.