There's a bit of sleight-of-hand going on here. The OP referred to changes made in other languages, specifically deliberate alterations like those in German and Dutch made by the official language unions. These changes have always been an attempt to create more regularity and simplification and clarity in languages that were formed under natural circumstances.
Evolutionary changes, as seen in some changes in e.g. English, are a different thing entirely. They don't even necessarily lead to simplification or clarity or regularity either. These are just changes for multitudes of unrelated reasons.

With regard to the matter at hand, the suggestion of reducing esti to a single vowel seems overwhelmingly pointless to me. It's not even a hard or problematic verb. What benefit would it create, what 'problem' would it solve? Those are questions that should arise when suggesting anything to do with changes.

All LIVING languages are evolving, so if you want Esperanto to live, let it evolve!

This seems like a misguided notion of what it means for Esperanto to "evolve".

By a language "evolving", I do not mean beginners attempting to introduce substantial changes that add no discernible benefit, contradict long-standing precedent, and in general introduce a level of confusion.

I would say that, to the contrary: if one person can single-handedly incur changes to a language in the way you are suggesting, that language is probably a dead one - hence why Arie de Jong could publish his revised Volapuk in the 30s, for example: because there were (essentially) no speakers he would have to persuade to accept them.

dnaleor:
Well, for starters, I didn't live in 1905 so I never had the chance to vote on this.

Well for starters, I didn't live in the middle ages so I never had the chance to vote on Spanish, either. That doesn't mean I can just start making everything gender neutral and use "el" for the definite article on every noun and stop making adjectives agree with their nouns and making all the verbs regular, etc. etc. etc.

dnaleor:I still do think it is possible it will be adopted someday (low % chance, but you never know)

No, it won't be. Why? because it violates the Fundamento, the "constitution" of Esperanto, if thee will (and the difference between "our" constitution and every other one out there is that ours doesn't have a provision for amending it).

dnaleor:But that's not the point. Even french, dutch and other established languages do change. It's a slow process, but the rules do change sometimes.

Yes, and Esperanto is now a language just like french, dutch, and other established languages. To change it requires the organic evolution that french and dutch use: slow change, used by the community of speakers as a whole (not those who are just learning; sorry) for a long time before the change gets accepted as "correct". Not just one person swooping in and decreeing a change from on high. Consider: Even Zamenhof himself bowed to the Bulonja Dekleracio, and he created the language!

dnaleor:I'm not surprised you are defending the "club voted on this many years ago, so now we can't change it anymore" position, because I noticed you constantly use 'thou' and 'thee'. Who in the world uses this nowadays?

quakers and some others. the difference between my thee and thy etc and the change you asked about is that mine was an everyday part of the language at one time, and still is for some people. The change thee suggested never was.

dnaleor:by the way, "thee" is the objective case of "thou" and you keep using "thee" in places where it should be nominative.

by the way, "you" is the objective case of "ye" and thee keeps using "you" in places where it should be nominative. As I say in my profile, For various reasons (most of them religious), I use Quaker style "plain speech."(aka "theeing and thying" ). Please do not presume to "correct my grammar": I can make book on the fact that I know the particularities of this dialect better than most if not all of you.

orthohawk:

dnaleor:I'm not surprised you are defending the "club voted on this many years ago, so now we can't change it anymore" position, because I noticed you constantly use 'thou' and 'thee'. Who in the world uses this nowadays?

quakers and some others. the difference between my thee and thy etc and the change you asked about is that mine was an everyday part of the language at one time, and still is for some people. The change thee suggested never was.

dnaleor:by the way, "thee" is the objective case of "thou" and you keep using "thee" in places where it should be nominative.

by the way, "you" is the objective case of "ye" and thee keeps using "you" in places where it should be nominative. As I say in my profile, For various reasons (most of them religious), I use Quaker style "plain speech."(aka "theeing and thying" ). Please do not presume to "correct my grammar": I can make book on the fact that I know the particularities of this dialect better than most if not all of you.

Just had a thought: Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about (natural evolution of a language vs. "swooping in and suggesting a change" ). Thee is upset with us for going all Mr. Hyde on thee for proposing a reform (and with the exception of Vestitor and MAYBE Tempo, we were quite nice about it, considering). Well, isn't that the exact same thing thee did to me for my "theeing and thying"? and I'm a native speaker! I come "swooping in suggesting a change" (and, actually, I'm not suggesting anyone else adopt this at all) and it does not get received well and I got trounced; imagine a relatively new student of English in China coming in and saying "Hey, you all should never have let "thou" go by the wayside. It would be way better to use it".

Or let's take French (I'm assuming since thee is Belgian, that thee learned it at thy mother's knee or else in school and are a fluent speaker now, yes?). Some rube over here in the US comes to Belgium and begins telling all of you, "hey, y'know, you wouldn't need to use the subject pronouns if y'all would just go back to pronouncing the verb endings. You should really do it that way because it's better!" Now, honestly, what's your (and especially thy) reaction?

orthohawk:

No, it won't be. Why? because it violates the Fundamento, the "constitution" of Esperanto, if thee will...

by the way, "you" is the objective case of "ye" and thee keeps using "you" in places where it should be nominative. As I say in my profile, For various reasons (most of them religious), I use Quaker style "plain speech."(aka "theeing and thying" ). Please do not presume to "correct my grammar": I can make book on the fact that I know the particularities of this dialect better than most if not all of you.

This is tripe. If it was being followed to the letter you would have replied: if thou wilt/willst. My paternal grandparents were quakers. Your alleged 'dialect' seems made up to me.

Vestitor:

orthohawk:

No, it won't be. Why? because it violates the Fundamento, the "constitution" of Esperanto, if thee will...

by the way, "you" is the objective case of "ye" and thee keeps using "you" in places where it should be nominative. As I say in my profile, For various reasons (most of them religious), I use Quaker style "plain speech."(aka "theeing and thying" ). Please do not presume to "correct my grammar": I can make book on the fact that I know the particularities of this dialect better than most if not all of you.

This is tripe. If it was being followed to the letter you would have replied: if thou wilt/willst. My paternal grandparents were quakers. Your alleged 'dialect' seems made up to me.

All dialects are made up. Regardless of what you (or I, if I'm being honest) think of orthohawk's manner of speech, it has been consistent everywhere I've seen it, which either means it's a "real" dialect (whatever that means), or it's important enough to him that he consistently types every post in that same manner. Either way, as long as we all understand what's being said, who cares how it's said?

Careful, that could easily apply to the question of the original poster of this thread.

Breto: Either way, as long as we all understand what's being said, who cares how it's said?

Vestitor:Careful, that could easily apply to the question of the original poster of this thread.

Kaj kial 'as tiu danĝera?
Vi ne komprenus min se mi tajpus tiel?
Almenaŭ mia versio de esperanto 'as kohera kun la bazaj principoj.

dnaleor:

Breto: Either way, as long as we all understand what's being said, who cares how it's said?

Vestitor:Careful, that could easily apply to the question of the original poster of this thread.

Kaj kial 'as tiu danĝera?
Vi ne komprenus min se mi tajpus tiel?
Almenaŭ mia versio de esperanto 'as kohera kun la bazaj principoj.

(I cannot believe I'm taking the bait here....)

Yes, that could easily apply to the original question of this thread. I think I even said as much in my first post back on the first page (with bold text added for clarity):

Breto:I've never seen or heard it abbreviated to the extent you suggest, and I would tend to avoid it just because of the potential for a listener to misunderstand the verbal ending as part of the preceding word.

In a way, this use already exists outside of specific poetic examples, but it exists in a way that avoids ambiguity and misunderstanding. When people want a shorter form of La ĉielo estas blua, they typically do not resort to La ĉielo 'as blua, but rather to La ĉielo bluas.

More importantly, though, I'm talking about general conversation, and not language acquisition. As is often mentioned in a learning context, one needs to know the rules before one can bend or break them. This is just as true with language as with anything else. Both orthohawk and I are fluent speakers of English, and this is the English forum. If he wants to thee it up, more power to him. It sounds weird to my ears (or looks weird to my eyes, as the case may be), but I still understand him. I would never teach the use of thee to a beginning English speaker, though, and outside of a Quaker context, I tend to doubt orthohawk would either. Basics first. Besides, as has been stated repeatedly, this is a thread about a clarification on the general usage in Esperanto. The original question has been answered, more than once, and was even educational...I know I'd never seen a use like 'as or 'u before. I still don't plan to use them and don't recommend them, but it's good to know they are out there. Hopefully if I encounter them, I'll remember what they mean.

@dnaleor: This thread has grown far beyond what you intended, and I recommend abandoning it to the flaming downward spiral it has developed. It will burn itself out eventually, and you've already learned what you sought. I sent you a private message earlier, and if you would like to discuss things further, I welcome a reply. I probably won't post to this thread again though; it just doesn't seem worth it.

Vestitor:

orthohawk:

No, it won't be. Why? because it violates the Fundamento, the "constitution" of Esperanto, if thee will...

by the way, "you" is the objective case of "ye" and thee keeps using "you" in places where it should be nominative. As I say in my profile, For various reasons (most of them religious), I use Quaker style "plain speech."(aka "theeing and thying" ). Please do not presume to "correct my grammar": I can make book on the fact that I know the particularities of this dialect better than most if not all of you.

This is tripe. If it was being followed to the letter you would have replied: if thou wilt/willst. My paternal grandparents were quakers. Your alleged 'dialect' seems made up to me.

As I said, I know the particularities of this dialect better than most if not all of you.

But if thee insists upon acting like a child and demand to KNOW-GOL-DANGIT!!!!, read it and weep:
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~bmaurus/plainspeech.h...
and
http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/spiritual...

Now, thee was saying?