Linguistically the majority of Esperantist's won't give a poop about what the Academy dictates or what the Fundamento sets down in stone. The biggest influences on the language are Lernu, PMEG, PIV, and other learning materials such as the recent Duolingo. People use the language they learned and only change it slightly overtime based on what they hear and see around them. People can debate the fundamento and it's intended meaning until they're blue in the face ... but realistically it will make little difference. If you really want to enforce a certain form or style you'll need to influence the above mentioned works / sites.

Admin: Racism isn't permitted here

Dear sudanglo,

I am really glad that you wrote what I had been thinking the whole time. I think that there might be indeed some cultural influence or bias involved.

Welger, Kück and Pabst are Germans. Germans (and I myself was born in Germany to German parents and grew up there) do love rules and laws more than life itself. Even more importantly Welger was and Pabst is a jurist. "When the only tool you know is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Both use juristic methods to approach the Fundament and Esperanto in general. They discuss whether a subclause is conditional or explanatory, they try to deduce from several sources a completely prescriptive foundation of Esperanto, ignoring completely any descriptive approach. They assert certain postulates to be true, use those postulations later on as a premise for further logical deduction (or juridical interpretation) as if the first postulate were a given truth. This is nothing bad, but they should admit, that there are other methodologies which can be applied.

So, a jurist wrote a juridical commentary (common practice among practitioners of law, I guess) about the Fundament. Then he started promoting it here. Which is legit. However, one's arguments grow moot quite quickly, if one keeps on quoting their own papers and is condescending, patronizing and even insulting toward others. When one almost exclusively quote one's own papers, the whole argumentative building might collapse like a cardhouse.

The commentary he wrote might be a fine work of Esperantology, however I failed to find any published peer review of this document (a fact I esteem to be the result of my bad googling skills).

nornen:So, a jurist wrote a juridical commentary (common practice among practitioners of law, I guess) about the Fundament. Then he started promoting it here. Which is legit. However, one's arguments grow moot quite quickly, if one keeps on quoting their own papers and is condescending, patronizing and even insulting toward others. When one almost exclusively quote one's own papers, the whole argumentative building might collapse like a cardhouse.

I did find it mildly amusing to hear from the author that I had an obligation to read his Commentary to correctly understand the Fundamento. Actually, I read portions of it - it's well-written, and I think largely accurate, though too prescriptivist for my taste (more than PAG). It extensively quotes Zamenhof's Lingvaj Respondoj, essentially treating it as normative in interpreting the Fundamento - something I don't think Z would have agreed with, having relinquished control over the language.

This logico-analytical approach to Esperanto reminds me of logical positivism.

I thought Esperantujo were beyond ethnic stereotypes. My bad.

Kirilo81:I thought Esperantujo were beyond ethnic stereotypes. My bad.

Stereotypes don't come into existence ex nihilo. Cultural differences do exist, and societies tend to shape their members according to their values, preferences, perspectives, etc.

To say that Germans are on average more law-abiding and rule-loving than e.g. Guatemalans, is in my opinion no act of ethnic stereotyping, but just a testimony to cultural differences. Also it goes well together with the frequent argumenta ad hominem which the aforementioned forum members use in excess.

Tempodivalse:It extensively quotes Zamenhof's Lingvaj Respondoj, essentially treating it as normative in interpreting the Fundamento - something I don't think Z would have agreed with, having relinquished control over the language.

I think you are right:

Zamenhof (1910):Komencante de Decembro 1906, mi, per La Revuo, de tempo al tempo donadis al diversaj demandantoj respondojn pri diversaj lingvaj demandoj. Tiuj Respondoj havis karakteron pure privatan, tiel same kiel la respondoj, kiujn en diversaj gazetoj donas aliaj kompetentaj Esperantistoj. Sed kiam mi vidis, ke multaj personoj vidas en miaj Respondoj kvazaŭ ian «oficialan decidon» pri tiu aŭ alia demando, kaj miaj Respondoj sekve povus malhelpi la tute liberan evoluadon de nia lingvo aŭ malhelpe entrudiĝi en la kampon, kiu devas aparteni plene al nia Akademio, mi ĉesis publikigi la Respondojn.

The commentary he wrote might be a fine work of Esperantology, however I failed to find any published peer review of this document (a fact I esteem to be the result of my bad googling skills).

I believe the Berlina Komentario is still "under construction" - which makes sense, if it is indeed just one person's work. This may explain why it is not formally published anywhere.

Also. It occurred to me that in many cases, Zamenhof's advice and writings would be considered rather archaic from the 21st century perspective. The langauge has, in many ways, moved on, and now contains many features (even excluding lexical) not present in Zamenhof's lifetime: independent use of affixes, increased use of cxi, greatly increased productivity of adverbial endings, to name just a few.

If a learner relies primarily or exclusively on old sources and old authors, his language will seem a little "stiff" at first, until he is exposed to other Esperantophones. This is what happened to me when I was a komencanto.

So - Zamenhof's (eksterfundamentaj) writings and advice are definitely exemplary, but they should by no means be the only thing taken into consideration.

To those who don't believe Esperanto has changed that much, I recommend comparing a modern piece of poetry with the 1906 translation of the Aeneid. The latter is almost unrecognisable at first blush.

Kirilo81: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?)

Here Zamenhof's "nav'"/"ship'" example with indication of the source (in chapter "La Esperanto celita de la Bulonja Deklaracio", after the first bullet list).

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). 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).

Here Zamenhof's explanation on "novaj vortoj" kaj "formoj novaj".

Please note that Zamenhof used the term "neologismo" for "formoj novaj". The latter can be named also "formoj paralelaj" (namely to Fundamental/officialised roots).

"Formo nova" is not always just a "one root" thing ("unuradikajho") but can also be a new grammatical rule ("nova regulo"). Please (re)read the 8th paragraph of the "Antauparolo":

"Se ia autoritata centra institucio trovos, ke tiu au alia vorto au regulo en nia lingvo estas tro neoportuna, ghi ne devos forigi au shanghi la diritan formon, sed ghi povos proponi formon novan, kiun ghi rekomendos uzadi paralele kun la formo malnova ..."