Fenris_kcf:

Tempodivalse:I virtually never see truly proficient Esperantists propose big changes to the language

There are many proficiant Esperantists, that do. I'm not talking about me, but for example Jorge Camacho. You are putting things way to simple, if you think that only komencantoj are willing to apply reforms.

There are minor exceptions - hence why I qualified my statement. I actually did think of Camacho, but couldn't think of anyone else. The point is that highly proficient reformists are very few and have failed to set any precedent that gained a non-negligible subsequent following. The majority of "reform proposers" are in my experience much less experienced people.

I can't recall the last time I saw substantially reformed language being used in a serious text - periodicals, scholarly articles, literary works, Tekstaro, etc., which is where I look when I want to figure out whether a certain word, or certain manner of expression, has precedent or can be considered proper Esperanto.

Just from looking at those kinds of texts, you might not even be aware that iĉismo exists, because it is used so vanishingly infrequently (excepting meta-discussions of iĉismo using non-iĉisma language).

By the way: Why the heck is this discussion in English again?

Lernu policies don't seem to forbid it - this is not off-topic for this subforum.

Also, this thread extends ideas found in other threads on the English subforum, so I thought it would be of interest to subforum participants.

Tempodivalse:

By the way: Why the heck is this discussion in English again?

Lernu policies don't seem to forbid it - this is not off-topic for this subforum.

Also, this thread extends ideas found in other threads on the English subforum, so I thought it would be of interest to subforum participants.

What he said!

Additionally, these types of "proposals" usually come from rank beginners (and English speaking ones from what I've seen), so this would be the best forum to "cut them off at the pass" so to speak.

It's not off-topic for the forum. One may wish that the discussion would take place in another place but it's not against the rules for it to be here (the site's admins are accused of being dictatorial in forum moderation but everything other than obscenity/offensiveness and rudeness is treated with a light touch).

Those who wish not to discuss this topic in English should preferably use an existing Esperanto thread or start a new one. As always, feel free to link to your new thread from here. Continuing to post in a thread whose existence you oppose is a little like feeding a troll - you are only helping keep the thread alive.

Regarding Jorge Camacho - I am not aware of him being a reformer in any serious sense of the word. He seems to support freedom to create new vocabulary, even if it duplicates existing vocabulary. I'm not sure I have a problem with that. He's a poet and he wants lots of words. Poets are traditionally the most change-inclined with regard to vocabulary. I might not make the same choices as him regarding which words to use, but I don't oppose his right to use new words. He is taken seriously because if you read his texts, he writes in normal Esperanto.

I also found the following quote of his online in a discussion of iĉism:

Jorge Camacho:Oni menciis min ĉi-teme. Siatempe mi verkis iĉismajn rakontojn en "Sur la linio", kaj miaj pensoj pri la masklisma aspekto de esperanto ne ŝanĝiĝis. Sed 1), prave, esperanto nun bezonas pli da parolantoj; 2) "eksperimentojn oni faru hejme per kolao" t.e. oni ne prezentu siajn preferojn en enciklopedio aŭ tekstoj por ĝenerala publiko; 3) pli facile ol reformi la lingvon konforme al la deziro de unu persono, estas reformi la personon mem!

"Someone mentioned me in this topic. Some time ago, I wrote iĉist stories in "Sur la linio", and my thoughts about the masculine-focused aspect of Esperanto have not changed. But 1), correct, Esperanto now needs more speakers; 2) "experiments should be done at home with cola", that is, you shouldn't present your preferences in an encyclopedia or in texts for the general public; 3) easier than reforming the language to conform to the desires of one person, is to reform the person him/herself!"

In summary - I would not go around online trotting out lots of reform proposals and saying it's fine and lots of eminent Esperanto speakers support it, such as Jorge Camacho. He has a nuanced view and I wouldn't be so hasty in pasting his name all over your pro-reform stuff.

erinja:Ok, "not completely arbitrary", but it's still splitting hairs. Just because something ended up a certain way for a historical reason, or because of a parent language or whatever - it is still based on a reason other than logic, and explaining to someone "You have to do it this way in Serbo-croatian because Old Church Slavonic did it this way" actually doesn't help them learn it. Every aspect of a language has roots somewhere but the point is that you need to just learn it, not argue with it. Oh, you wish the Italian word for horse was derived from Greek rather than Latin? Tough.

This reminds me of a podcast I heard where the guy proclaimed that he had discovered why the spanish word for 'hand' (la mano) is feminine despite it's masculine-sounding ending. It's because it comes from the latin word manus which is also feminine despite looking like it would be masculine.

I don't know why this seemed like an explanation to him. It just pushes the mystery back a generation. But I guess even this sliver of an explanation was enough to make him feel like he understood this aspect of Spanish.

Well, maybe we should clarify what we mean by "why".

You can answer the question of "why do we use the accusative case in this instance?" with: "Because it is used here to indicate time, which is one of the accusative's roles." These kinds of "whys", are in many ways useful, insofar as they allow you to come to a greater understanding of the grammar.

The other kind of "why", which the Foreign Service Institute is alluding to, is "why does one use this particular spelling/ending/phoneme/etc. and not another", "this looks arbitrary, why isn't it more logical". That kind of "why" is impossible to answer without getting into deep etymological research, and is unhelpful for people who just want to speak the language - it won't help grammar or fluency.

It doesn't help me to know that term X in language Y is derived from Proto-Indo-European Z unless I am an expert in PIE, in which case maybe I can memorise the word a bit faster or predict how derived terms will be formed. But this isn't the position of most learners.

erinja:Regarding Jorge Camacho - I am not aware of him being a reformer in any serious sense of the word. He seems to support freedom to create new vocabulary, even if it duplicates existing vocabulary. I'm not sure I have a problem with that. He's a poet and he wants lots of words. Poets are traditionally the most change-inclined with regard to vocabulary. I might not make the same choices as him regarding which words to use, but I don't oppose his right to use new words. He is taken seriously because if you read his texts, he writes in normal Esperanto.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was a bit suspicious of the claim too, but I think my point stands in any event.

In some sense being a "proficient" or "serious" Esperantist and being a reformer are mutually exclusive, insofar as you're only considered serious or highly proficient if you use normal/standard Esperanto. Less proficient speakers are often betrayed by overuse of idiomatic expressions or forms, odd word order, or use of inappropriate lexicon.

For example, if I see compound active verbs used a lot by a certain speaker, I assume he hasn't learned yet that one normally prefers the simple verbs. If I see someone use je excessively, I conclude he's not quite comfortable with the prepositions yet. And so on. If I see someone use -icx, my immediate assumption is that the person hasn't interacted with other speakers enough to realise that nobody speaks the way he does.

Most idiosyncracies in people's Esperanto disappear over time, as they interact with the rest of the language community and (consciously or subconsciously) conform their language use to the way they see it used. This is the way L2 speakers of English, etc get better - same with Esperanto. It happened to me, too - the first few months after starting Esperanto, I tended to vary from SVO much more than is average. Several years later, my word order is still less rigid than some Esperantists', but it doesn't look out of place now - rather, it looks like a conscious stylistic decision - to bring out a nuance.

Tempodivalse:Well, maybe we should clarify what we mean by "why".

Good clarification Tempo!

You can answer questions about what rules in the language govern a certain usage (e.g. You use the accusative form in this sentence because this word is the direct object.)

You can't answer questions about why those rules (ultimately) exist in the first place (e.g. Why does language X use an accusative case instead of prepositions and/or syntax?).

I think people tend to ask the second kind of question when they find something different from their native language, or some rule that seems arbitrary. Trying to answer these questions almost never helps you learn the language.

I'm thinking that every beginner language book should begin with Chapter 1: Languages are Arbitrary... Deal With It.

Since I live in an area where English is one of the two linguae francae, i.e. South Florida, which is de facto bilingual even though 'politically' it is "English-speaking" I feel the constraints of English all the time and I cross the border and invent new words. I also teach English to immigrants and I teach them the least exception prone forms since they already have enough on their plates (so 'dialog' not 'dialogue' and 'showed' not 'shown' - let alone the plethora of irregularities in the British variant like 'learnt' and their ilk). Nobody rails at my coined words in English. There is no discussion against them. If somebody likes my coinage, they pick it up. Otherwise it is said/written once and then, poof! gone!
I never use -iĉ- but I am not against it. It just doesn't move me to use it. To indicate masculinity I usually use vir-.

i remember in my first year of high school I asked my French teacher why the French say "I have 14 years" rather than "I an 14 years old." Her answer: "Because God wants it that way!" That was a good enough answer for me and I've never asked such a question since.

Mustelvulpo:i remember in my first year of high school I asked my French teacher why the French say "I have 14 years" rather than "I an 14 years old."

In my opinion its statement of personal success: 'I've done it to reach living year number 14' = 'I have 14 years'. 'Not (some) God did for it me, I (mainly) did it by myself'.