There is a trend among both reformers and critics of Esperanto: to take a particular feature of the language, and try to demonstrate why it is somehow bad or inferior to some proposed alternative.

The problem with these criticisms is that they deal with some abstract model of Esperanto: they treat it as though it were in a vacuum.

Analogy: Suppose I were exposed to English grammar for the first time and asked to evaluate its suitability for communication.

I would look at the awful spellings, the rampant ambiguities ("-ing" can denote a gerund, an adverbial participle, an adjectival participle, or just be part of a root; words like "round" can be nouns, adjectives, or verbs) and think: "This is a total mess! Even if you learned this language, you would still be constantly confused about the meanings of words. Look how poorly parts of speech are marked, look at the weird practice of dropping thats, etc. etc. ..."

This conclusion, however, wouldn't take into account the language as it is actually spoken. Despite whatever your abstract model tells you, if you look at the living thing, you will see that this is ultimately not an impediment, at least among more proficient speakers.

The same is true of Esperanto - substitute English's problems with criticisms of Esperanto: the accusative ending, -au words, imbalance of the genders, etc.

This explains why reformers and critics of Esperanto usually have a poor, or at best mediocre, grasp of the language: they haven't been exposed to living Esperanto enough. Instead, most of their exposure to the language has come in the form of a textbook or some other sterile, closed environment. But once you leave the textbook and get talking with real people, you discover that the language takes on a new dimension.

Sometimes, of course, a real difficulty will emerge in a language. Then, the collective community of speakers (rather than just a few outliers) will intuit the difficulty, and organically develop solutions. The trajectory of these solutions is usually predictable.

For example, a problem arose circa 1980: What do you call a "computer"? Various terms are introduced, by a wide variety of speakers. Over time, a clear consensus emerges for komputilo and the competing terms gradually become extinct.

However: When there is persistent, widespread apathy towards a particular neologism or change, there's often a reason for it: it's not solving a problem that needs to be solved.

Tempodivalse:This explains why reformers and critics of Esperanto usually have a poor, or at best mediocre, grasp of the language

Isn't this a hasty generalisation?

On the other hand side, is it acceptable that experienced speakers bash single words like "mojosa" just out of personal disgust?

Then, the collective community of speakers (rather than just a few outliers) will intuit the difficulty, and organically develop solutions. The trajectory of these solutions is usually predictable.

How can this come to happen, if some Esperanto speakers are called "the collective", while others are called "the outliers"? Whose job is it to decide whether you and me are part of the "collective" or just "outliers"? Why are the reformists the "outliers" and not the self-declared "spertuloj" with their perceived "lingvosento" (you can recognise them easily, because they will always use these two terms in Esperanto, no matter in what language their are talking)?

Splitting Esperanto into a thousand dialects and sociolects might be undesirable.
Not allowing Esperanto to grow, develop and prosper, by bashing any new idea and at the same time stomping on this idea's father, would be lethal.

We might end up with an encyclopaedia entry like this:
"Esperanto: a constructed language created in the 19th century which died out in the 21st century, due to the fact that it wasn't able to adapt to linguistic needs of this century."

Not allowing Esperanto to grow, develop and prosper, by bashing any new idea and at the same time stomping on this idea's father, would be lethal.

I think you're overstating my position. I am not opposed to any new idea; I am opposed to pushing ideas which have been demonstrably rejected by the speaking community (which are usually ideas which don't solve a real problem).

How can this come to happen, if some Esperanto speakers are called "the collective", while others are called "the outliers"? Whose job is it to decide whether you and me are part of the "collective" or just "outliers"?

Well, replace "Esperanto" with "English", and the question remains much the same: Why haven't certain reforms or new forms caught on in English? Why didn't womyn etc. go anywhere? Who decided that it would fail?

The answer is difficult, as language seems to have a "mind of its own" independent of the influence of one or even a small group of individuals. The boundary between "outlier" and "non-outlier" is a vague one - perhaps more of a spectrum. Each person's language use has its own peculiarities. I was simplifying a bit.

But I think it's uncontroversial that you can observe certain broad trends in a language, especially over time, and certain other trends which are limited to a certain segment of the user base. Those latter trends are "outliers".

On the other hand side, is it acceptable that experienced speakers bash single words like "mojosa" just out of personal disgust?

I haven't seen much bashing of mojosa. I've seen some people indicate a personal dislike for the word, while acknowledging that is widely used. It's the same with much English slang. E.g., I dislike the English word "hot" when referring to a person's attractiveness, but I know what it means and I know lots of people use it.

We might end up with an encyclopaedia entry like this:
"Esperanto: a constructed language created in the 19th century which died out in the 21st century, due to the fact that it wasn't able to adapt to linguistic needs of this century."

If there is a real need, the language will adapt - just like other languages adapt. The influx of technological vocabulary over the past 20-30 years is a good example.

nornen:

Tempodivalse:This explains why reformers and critics of Esperanto usually have a poor, or at best mediocre, grasp of the language

Isn't this a hasty generalisation?

I think if you look here at Lernu and elsewhere, you will see that many or most reform proposals are put forth by relatively new speakers - though it may be difficult to demonstrate it more systematically.

Sure, there are more proficient critics; Xibalba's famous "ranto" is such a case: he knows enough not to make factual errors.

However, he still makes the mistake I outlined in my first post: of attacking an abstract model. Meanwhile, the speakers of the "real thing" weren't even aware that their language had all those problems!

"Gee, I didn't know our language was so unsuited for communication. We thought we'd been using it just fine all this time. I guess we should quit then..."

jean-luc:

nornen:
We might end up with an encyclopaedia entry like this:
"Esperanto: a constructed language created in the 19th century which died out in the 21st century, due to the fact that it wasn't able to adapt to linguistic needs of this century."

Why would esperanto die because it doesn't adapt to what you _personally_ think it should become ? And how would it survive if always modified to please the ideology of the day ?

What are you talking about? I didn't say a word about what I personally think it should become...

I don't want Esperanto to become anything.

nornen:On the other hand side, is it acceptable that experienced speakers bash single words like "mojosa" just out of personal disgust?

Of course. Mojosa is slang, and bashing it out of personal disgust is treating Esperanto with the same respect as any other language. I also laugh at my husband when he uses the word "clutch" as a slang word. I tell him that I have no idea what that means when he says something is 'clutch'. I think it means "cool" but if so I wish he would just say "cool" because I haven't a clue.

Tempodivalse:Sure, there are more proficient critics; Xibalba's famous "ranto" is such a case: he knows enough not to make factual errors.

However, he still makes the mistake I outlined in my first post: of attacking an abstract model. Meanwhile, the speakers of the "real thing" weren't even aware that their language had all those problems!

I entirely agree (although there are a few factual errors, such as his claim that there is something sexist about the prefix fi-). I find this "ranto" annoying because it's obvious that he never bothered to check how Esperanto is used in real life.