A good rule of thumb is that is your Esperanto isn't good enough to discuss your reform in Esperanto, then you probably shouldn't be discussing your reform yet. Being able to discuss your ideas in Esperanto, even faulty Esperanto, is a bare minimum. And while the Esperanto-language forums here can also have lots of nasty things said about people proposing reforms and about their proposals, you are generally better received when you are able to discuss your ideas in Esperanto rather than in another language.

erinja:A good rule of thumb is that is your Esperanto isn't good enough to discuss your reform in Esperanto, then you probably shouldn't be discussing your reform yet. Being able to discuss your ideas in Esperanto, even faulty Esperanto, is a bare minimum.

So, just to sum it up: are Kálmán Kalocsay and Bertilo Wennergren okay? Do you accept their right to discuss this element of licentia poetica?

By the way, I suppose you'd be able to prepare a better argument against this fi-idea, than to forbid talking about it. But, you know, you'd have to try, wouldn't you?

dnaleor:Hi people,

I know, again, a komencinto that proposes something "contrafundamento"
But I was wondering, did people already propose this and if yes, is it adopted somewhat or just rejected?

I think (mostly when speaking) that the verb "esti" i pretty long.
Why not abbreviate it to the verb "i" ?

You might like to investigate the language Ido (Internaciona Dualinguo di Omni).
In Ido it is quite acceptable to abbreviate "esas" to "es".

I don't have a problem with poets using the language in ways that would be considered ungrammatical in any other context, using neologisms, etc, because that's what poets do.

And I am happy for any fluent Esperanto speaker to discuss any topic, including reform proposals, and the "any fluent Esperanto speaker" would of course include my friend Bertilo and include luminaries of the past such as Kalocsay. As it happens, I have no problem with fluent speakers discussing the merits of reform proposals, and the limits of how far you can go with the language and remain within the fundamento.

However -- I would not wish for beginners to misconstrue what poets do and suppose that this gives them license to speak, as everyday speech, in a way that is difficult to understand. And as for discussing reform proposals, people can talk about what they want, but someone needs to have a minimal amount of "street cred" before I will give their opinion any weight at all on a topic, and in this case, "street cred" consists of speaking Esperanto at a level of MINIMALLY being able to make your ideas clearly understood, but preferably speaking at a relatively high level. Why should I bother to listen to someone who believes they have improved the language when they are clearly not in a position to understand the languages's strengths and weaknesses, because they don't even speak it at a conversational level? By the way, I'm not aiming this at the original poster in this thread - I do not know his or her Esperanto level, and misspelling a word doesn't mean you aren't conversational. This is, however, my general principle for discussions of reforms.

Roch:Esperanto doesn't invent words but borrows them...

From French est, Ancient Greek ἐστί (estí), German ist, and Latin est.

I would add Polish "jest"

michaleo:

Roch:Esperanto doesn't invent words but borrows them...

From French est, Ancient Greek ἐστί (estí), German ist, and Latin est.

I would add Polish "jest"

I would add:

• Proto-Indo-European — *h₁és-, *h₁ésti
  
• Sanskrit — अस्ति (ásti)
  
• Old Persian — (astiy)
  
• Hittite — (ēszi)
  
• Old Church Slavonic — єстъ (estŭ)
  
• Gothic — (ist)
  
• Proto-Slavic — *jestъ
  
• Spanish — es
  
• Romanian — ești, este
  
• Portuguese — és
  
• Catalan — ets, és, estàs
  
• Aromanian — escu, eshti, easti
  
• Corsican — eri
  
• Franco-Provençal — és, est
  
• Friulian — è, jeri
  
• Galician — è, es, eras
  
• Istriot — ièsi
  
• Piedmontese — essend, j'era
  
• Romansch — è, es, eras, easser
  
• Neapolitan — èssere, stà
  
• Sicilian — è, esti
  
• Venetian — stà, èser
  
• Albanian — është
  
• Belarusian — ёсць (jóscʹ)
  
• Bulgarian — сте (stie)
  
• Cornish — esa, eses
  
• Czech — jsme, jste
  
• Dutch — staan
  
• English — is
  
• Old Armenian — ես (es)
  
• Latvian — esmu, esi
  
• Lithuanian — esu, esi
  
• Germanic — *isti
  
• Indo-Iranian — *es-
  
• Persian — هست (hast), است (ast)
  
• Tocharian B — ste
  
• Faroese — ert

And maaany more

Super list...however in Esperanto it happens to be esti so people just go with that. Make a suggestion to alter any from that list I'm sure you'll get a warm welcome.

Roch:"Make a suggestion to alter any from that list I'm sure you'll get a warm welcome."

Ironic???

Most languages got their regulators

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_reg...

That may be, but I would make book on the fact that most, if not all of the members of those regulatory groups are fluent speakers of the language the group regulates (if not actually NATIVE speakers).

Breto:
Edit: By the way, that last example of yours would not have the verb "esti" at all. I'm pretty sure "They would go" is simply "Ili irus". Also, "kvieta" should be plural if it describes "ni".

erinja:It's a non-starter.

I mean this in a friendly way -- your time would be better spent studying Esperanto rather than coming up with proposals for changing it. As you indicated in your original message, you already know know that these beginner proposals are very poorly received, and I think your initial assumption was backed up by the response you've received. This was fun! Now maybe spend some time learning the language instead of reforming it.

(also -- kontraŭfundamenta, with a k and a ŭ. People will take you more seriously if you spell the words correctly)

Tempodivalse:Please learn the language before attempting to reform it.

Think of how callous and arrogant it would be to (say) barge into a French-learning forum and propose substantial changes to the French language. You would be laughed off the site. The same is true for Esperanto.

Excuse me, for the small mistakes in my opening post.
I am aware of "ili irus", "mi kvietas" etc...
I was just experimenting with the language, to a larger extend then people who use esperanto for a longer time than me.

I would say there is a big difference between barging into a french forum and an esperanto forum: Esperanto is a constructed and much younger language. It's really up to the users to decide how to use the language.

I wasn't expecting that people would answer "Ni faru tion" to this question. I didn't even vote for that option myself.

Thank you mbalicki for actually answering my question where I was interested in. I didn't knew it was used sometimes (and I bet not many people knew). It was even mentioned in PMEG.
Interesting find!

PS: will continue my learning for sure. I started one month ago and studied 20 minutes every day.

erinja:A good rule of thumb is that is your Esperanto isn't good enough to discuss your reform in Esperanto, then you probably shouldn't be discussing your reform yet. Being able to discuss your ideas in Esperanto, even faulty Esperanto, is a bare minimum. And while the Esperanto-language forums here can also have lots of nasty things said about people proposing reforms and about their proposals, you are generally better received when you are able to discuss your ideas in Esperanto rather than in another language.

Mia esperanto ne malbonas, sed mi preferas uzi la anglan ĉi tie ĉar mi sentas min pli konfida kiam mi diskutas komplikajn aferojn