Kirilo81:I adhere to this school, called Velgerismo or Jurscienca Aliro, for me most of its conclusions come naturally from the Antaŭparolo, e.g. the case spontan' vs. spontane' is clear as well water on base of its 8th paragraph.

Thanks for the response. My interlocutors kept referring to Paragraph 8, but I could not find anything in there (or the rest of the Antaŭparolo, for that matter) which clearly prohibits using a "new form". To me, Paragraph 8 just describes the process by which one form formally becomes an archaism and is pushed out by a new one - it isn't concerned with quotidian use.

And the immediately preceding paragraph, 7, is much more liberal and gives the opposite impression (e.g., "one can enrich the language now" ).

The Akademio has made only 9 addenda to the official Vortaro in ~100 years. At this rate, they can't possibly keep up with the changes in the language, and "officialise" them in a timely manner. This means that already well-established words will be stuck as "malĝustaj" for years. I find that unreasonable. This isn't the way languages evolve.

This would be much more appropriate in the Esperanto forum, but I'm not really in the mood to get attacked the next time I make a typo. Maybe once this has cooled down I'll return to the Konsultejo.

Also. The comment section of http://www.liberafolio.org/2013/nova-prezidanto-vo... is quite illuminating.

I'm still left scratching my head, though - this "Velgerismo" or whatever it's called appears to make the same mistake as critics or would-be reformers of Esperanto: looking at some abstract model of EO in a vacuum, without considering the language as it is actually used, and without considering the dynamics at work in a living language which make it so difficult to legislate changes.

For instance, I doubt that, if the Akademio came out and declared spontan/a intolerable, you would see a precipitous drop in its usage. Most speakers would still use it as normal.

Pedants will be pedants. The best way to deal with them is to simply ignore them. Deprived of oxygen they will fade away.

Bemused:Pedants will be pedants. The best way to deal with them is to simply ignore them. Deprived of oxygen they will fade away.

Sure, I agree. These "pedants", however, have an excellent grasp of Esperanto (unlike most of the reformers and quasi-trolls around here), which is why I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. One in particular is the author of an extensive, and rather high-quality, commentary on the Fundamento.

Also, re: pronunciation, I've discovered that the English version of the Gramatiko doesn't use ideal examples for the vowels - at least if you have an American English accent ("a" as in "make"? but that's a dipthong ...) My understanding is that Zamenhof personally translated the Gramatiko into all five languages, though maybe with a little assistance.

In any case, I prefer reading the Gramatiko in the Russian or Polish editions. It just seems clearer and pithier.

Tempodivalse:The Akademio has made only 9 addenda to the official Vortaro in ~100 years. At this rate, they can't possibly keep up with the changes in the language, and "officialise" them in a timely manner. This means that already well-established words will be stuck as "malĝustaj" for years. I find that unreasonable. This isn't the way languages evolve.

Of course, but this problem exists only because of a misunderstanding you unfortunately made: New roots are totally fine (Antaŭparolo, 7), unless they are synonyms to official (UV/OA al la UV) roots. Only the latter case you need the approval of the Academy in order to use the new form besides the old one (Antaŭparolo, 8). And there is even an exception to this rule, viz international words are always correct (FG §15), even if synonymous to official roots (e.g. buso besides official aŭtobuso).
That said, the slow pace of the addition of Oficialaj Aldonoj makes sense, as only roots which have really proven stable and without competitors should make it into the unchangable part of the language.

Kirilo81:Of course, but this problem exists only because of a misunderstanding you unfortunately made: New roots are totally fine (Antaŭparolo, 7), unless they are synonyms to official (UV/OA al la UV) roots. Only the latter case you need the approval of the Academy in order to use the new form besides the old one (Antaŭparolo, 8).

I am aware of the difference between "new words/roots" and "new forms" (vorto nova, formo nova). However, I dispute the part where you say the Academy's approval is needed prior to using new forms. This is not what happened with spontan/a, konvers/i and many other terms where the "official" form never became very popular with the general Esperantophone public. People instead started using the alternate forms organically - as it is in other languages.

Paragraph 8 of Antauparolo, for reference:

Antauparolo:Se ia aŭtoritata centra institucio trovos, ke tiu aŭ alia vorto aŭ regulo en nia lingvo estas tro neoportuna, ĝi ne devos forigi aŭ ŝanĝi la diritan formon, sed ĝi povos proponi formon novan, kiun ĝi rekomendos uzadi paralele kun la formo malnova. Kun la tempo la formo nova iom post iom elpuŝos la formon malnovan, kiu fariĝos arĥaismo, kiel ni tion ĉi vidas en ĉiu natura lingvo. Sed, prezentante parton de la fundamento, tiuj ĉi arĥaismoj neniam estos elĵetitaj, sed ĉiam estos presataj en ĉiuj lernolibroj kaj vortaroj samtempe kun la formoj novaj, kaj tiamaniere ni havos la certecon, ke eĉ ĉe la plej granda pefektiĝado la unueco de Esperanto neniam estos rompata kaj neniu verko Esperanta eĉ el la plej frua tempo iam perdos sian valoron kaj kompreneblecon por la estontaj generacioj.

I am well-familiar with this paragraph, and I do not see where the use of "new forms" before the fact is prohibited. In fact, the language used here is quite weak - proponi, rekomendi. Paragraph 8 seems to just be concerned with the formal process for making a word an archaism - rather than with a normative claim on everyday speech.

Yes, you're right, but there is clarifying Lingva Respondo where Z uses the example of nav' instead of ŝip' in order to make this clear. (dear Lazyweb, could you give me a link?)

And: Of course there is a difference between the use as-is and as-should. Otherwise e.g. far would have never been used with the passive as it is explicitly forbidden by FG §6. Many people simply don't know where the norm comes from in E-o, and I see it also as my duty to make them aware that it doesn't work like all other languages.

And: Of course there is a difference between the use as-is and as-should.

Agreed - the fact-value (is-ought) distinction is often blurred ... However, to me this is a descriptive observation: many or most Esperantists, including highly proficient writers, poets, translators, etc., are simply not following the Akademio in the way you want. This observation confirms a point I often make - that a living language has a "mind of its own", composed of the users of the language collectively. This "mind" is beyond the ability of any individual, or even small group, to legislate it or force it into certain channels. So Velgerismo cannot be fully followed, even if ought to be. (Cue philosophical debate about whether "ought implies can".)

The collective Esperantist population has upheld the general grammatical principles and lexicon in the Fundamento - endings, cases, etc., by mutual agreement. This has stopped Esperanto from gradually evolving into something unrecognisable. However, when you get into the details, you see wide disagreements and varying interpretations on less clear aspects - hence why there are so many mini-disputes on the Lernu forums, and hence why PAG, PMEG and others exist (and why they don't agree with each other). I'm afraid I don't find it so simple as "the Akademio hasn't approved this new form, so we must call it malghusta".

I see it like Churchill's bonmot about democracy: The Fundamento model of evolution works badly, but all other perform even worse.
Seriously: The E-ists are very conscious that a norm has to be followed, but they erroneously obtain their norm from the textbooks they learn from. I think it's feasible to make the authors and users of learning material more aware of the Fundamento and its mechanisms how so solve doubts about language use.
But just yesterday the audience of the Lille UK had to hear from the vice-president of the Academy the following "argument": "if even the president is using this form, it can't be wrong", so maybe I hope too much. *facepalm*

But just yesterday the audience of the Lille UK had to hear from the vice-president of the Academy the following "argument": "if even the president is using this form, it can't be wrong", so maybe I hope too much. *facepalm*

Well, as any good linguist would keep in mind, there are two senses of "wrong": prescriptively wrong (violating some rule that has been made explicit by someone) and descriptively wrong (violating an implicit rule of the language as it is actually used).

There is an unusual - perhaps tense - dynamic between prescriptive and descriptive correctness in Esperanto.

In the argument "if the president is using form X, then form X can't be wrong," I assume that we have shifted from a prescriptive definition of "wrong" to a descriptive one. This is a natural shift, because we do it in other languages: we see everyone else using a form, we decide it must be correct, because in other languages what is correct is determined by what everyone is using.

And it is the same in Esperanto - just to a lesser degree, because the Esperanto-language community has made a conscious, implicit agreement not to violate the basic rules outlined in the Fundamento. But beyond those basic rules, the descriptive account of correctness is still largely accepted - whether you want it to be or not. I think it cannot be any other way if Esperanto is to be a living language.