novatago:

makis:

novatago: No because I don't mind that. I mind Esperanto. Of course, I didn't mean that every academian member has a right opinion. They are still humans as we are.

It must be so nice being right all the time.

Well, read that sentence more slowly, I think you missed something.

It's ok. I can walk you through it: if to be human is to err, and you are a human, then you can also make... what?

leporinjo:I'm extremely proud of how you have gone from a position of smug conviction in your own rationality and rightness to childish name-calling in minutes.

You've been here almost as long as I have. Have you never seen what this guy posts here on Lernu before now?

I fail to see what is actually being disputed here. Something along the lines of - "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" I hope everyone realises that this reflects poorly on all involved ...

Back on topic.

Minor note, the Ekzercaro is part of the Fundamento.

Also, there is a distinction between eksterfundamenta and kontraufundamenta. Failing to use the accusative ending would be an example of kontrafundamenta usage - it outright contradicts the Fundamento.

On the other hand, many things which are eksterfundamenta are in common use - this applies primarily to lexicon (neologisms, imported words, affixes like -enda, etc.), but also to certain grammatical features such as the zero copula (ili belas, io bezonatas). They are not seen in the Fundamento but follow straightforwardly from the spirit of its principles.

From this perspective, one could argue that a new pronoun like ri would fall into the latter, not the former, category. If we treat it like another neologism like liva or adolto, there seems to be no fundamental problem. Its acceptability then depends on observed usage in the community. Some eksterfundamentajhoj have failed that test, like adolto or jhogi, but nobody would insist that those words are in principle off-limits.

My objection to ri, then, is that almost nobody uses or understands it. It has thus far lacked the spontaneous, widespread adoption by the community of speakers - which is the way new words are established.

I don't think the problem is big enough to warrant a new pronoun (which is a fairly big deal), especially since there are already viable workarounds, as I indicated in a previous, now-buried post to this thread.

Tempodivalse:My objection to ri, then, is that almost nobody uses or understands it. It has thus far lacked the spontaneous, widespread adoption by the community of speakers - which is the way new words are established.

And it never will as long as people who do use it continue to be pilloried and made to feel like dua-kasaj esperantistoj simply because they have the audacity to use it.

orthohawk:

Tempodivalse:My objection to ri, then, is that almost nobody uses or understands it. It has thus far lacked the spontaneous, widespread adoption by the community of speakers - which is the way new words are established.

And it never will as long as people who do use it continue to be pilloried and made to feel like dua-kasaj esperantistoj simply because they have the audacity to use it.

Assuming that ri is ekster-fundamenta rather than kontrau-fundamenta, what we're dealing with here is the evolution of the lexicon. In that case, there is really no way to "force" speakers to accept a given term.

If you insisted upon jhogi instead of sportkuri, people would probably have a similar reaction - "why are you going out of your way to use a weird term nobody understands?"

It's curious how terms enter (or fail to enter) standard usage. If just a few people conspicuously use a particular term, normally this isn't enough, even given a lot of time (note the failure of ichismo).

Those people will be viewed as outliers, because there isn't the broad level of acceptance featured by successful neologisms like -enda, -ismo etc. Notably, no amount of campaigning is likely to affect change. It has to be an organic shift.

Like it or not, this is the way the language evolves.

Tempodivalse:

orthohawk:

Tempodivalse:My objection to ri, then, is that almost nobody uses or understands it. It has thus far lacked the spontaneous, widespread adoption by the community of speakers - which is the way new words are established.

And it never will as long as people who do use it continue to be pilloried and made to feel like dua-kasaj esperantistoj simply because they have the audacity to use it.

Assuming that ri is ekster-fundamenta rather than kontrau-fundamenta, what we're dealing with here is the evolution of the lexicon. In that case, there is really no way to "force" speakers to accept a given term.

If you insisted upon jhogi instead of sportkuri, people would probably have a similar reaction - "why are you going out of your way to use a weird term nobody understands?"

It's curious how terms enter (or fail to enter) standard usage. If just a few people conspicuously use a particular term, normally this isn't enough, even given a lot of time (note the failure of ichismo).

Those people will be viewed as outliers, because there isn't the broad level of acceptance featured by successful neologisms like -enda, -ismo etc. Notably, no amount of campaigning is likely to affect change. It has to be an organic shift.

Like it or not, this is the way the language evolves.

Thee completely glossed over my point. Ri and co. will never be accepted if people who do use them continue to be pilloried by the "more esperantist than thou" types, when they (the riistoj) use the term. Thankfully, this attitude was not prevalent from the beginning, or else our Radikaro would still be under 1000.
Same with "mojosa": (the attitude of certain people notwithstanding) there's nothing inherently wrong with the term. The way it was contrived is a valid, precedent-having method of coming up with new words.......at least in other languages But because certain high-profile personages have deemed it "termo non grata" it doesn't seem to have a chance at that eventual commuinity-wide acceptance all non-Fundamenta-now-official roots have enjoyed in the last 100+ years.

Thee completely glossed over my point. Ri and co. will never be accepted if people who do use them continue to be pilloried by the "more esperantist than thou" types, when they (the riistoj) use the term. Thankfully, this attitude was not prevalent from the beginning, or else our Radikaro would still be under 1000.

I thought what I said was quite relevant. Riismo is perhaps a particularly contentious issue, but in other respects it's just another term that failed to catch on, like komputoro, -iĉo, etc.

FWIW, I don't care if people use ri, even though I don't use it myself. I will notice it, of course, but I wouldn't react negatively, especially if you demonstrate a strong grasp of the language.

I am, however, opposed to ri being taught in beginning courses, say on Duolingo. The purpose of such courses is to present the language as it is commonly, standardly used - otherwise they will mislead the student, who doesn't know any better. The student can decide whether to adopt those terms later, once he has the proper grasp of the language.

I see this has escalated. I have not read all the posts. All I was doing in my original post was expressing my deep amusement at seeing a reform posting within 2-3 days of Duolingo Esperanto being on line.

Enough said.

1Guy1:I see this has escalated. I have not read all the posts. All I was doing in my original post was expressing my deep amusement at seeing a reform posting within 2-3 days of Duolingo Esperanto being on line.

I think it was obvious, that this would happen. And i appreciate it, since it shows the desire and need for a language, that is not only easy to learn, but also carries a mood of equality. IMO that can't be achieved with the ~20 male roots and the asymmetry in sexus-suffixes and personal pronouns. So it's just logical to critize these.

Duolingo and other ressources for learning Esperanto should really have a section where people can inform themselves about the usual reform-proposals, even if it is just to eliminate the impression that these are somehow secret or evil.

@leporinjo

As you mention de proposal of M. Cramer, you should also mention the follow-up article by C. Brosch, which shows how equal language can be reached without breaking the Fundamento (and even without the necessity to ask the Akademio for permission). The discussion is fruitful, too.

A word on the personal pronouns: The Fundamenta Gramatiko clearly states that no pronouns can be added, Zamenhof has consciously hidden ci en the Ekzercaro, because he didn't want it to be used.
With regard to li vs. ĝi as neutral pronoun for humans, there are indeed two systems (not considering workarounds and kontraŭfundamenta proposals like ri): The Fundamento has li, as was shown above, but, as Cramer mentions, Zamenhof in a Lingva Respondo once clarified that this use is due to the customs of the national (European) languages, while ĝi would be more logical. The general use of ĝi would also reunify the designation of humans and of animals.
I personally use ĝi whenever the sex/gender of a person is unknown, unimportant or somehow queer.