nornen:
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.

What I remark is that Esperanto speakers often ask: Is {any Esperanto word(ing)} correct Esperanto? Or: How do I say ... in correct Esperanto?

To decide between correct and not correct, there obviously have to be rules.

There are several options:
1) What the majority says/writes is correct.
2) What is written in PAG is correct.
3) What is written in PMEG is correct.
4) What the president of the Akademio de Esperanto says is correct.
5) What the listeners/readers well understand is correct.
6) ...

But whatever you define as decisive, e. g. 3): Also this will be a rule. And if you say that 1) or 5) is decisive you will have to specify also how the respective investigation has to be done, etc.

To make things easier, representatives of Esperanto speakers accepted the work "Fundamento de Esperanto" as the decisive rules for Esperanto already in 1905. Please note that due to "Oficialaj Aldonoj" said work has grown. Furthermore, some rules in that work allow development with regard to words necessary for new objects and new concepts: Rule 15 for international words, and the "Antauparolo" for "novaj vortoj" and "formoj novaj".

Welger, Pabst, Brosch, and me just point out that this is a matter of fact and what the consequences are.

Lingvaj Respondoj:(se ekzemple anstatau 'shipo' iu uzas la vorton 'navo', char la vorto 'shipo' al li 'ne plachas' - tio estus rekta peko kontrau la unueco de la lingvo kaj chiuj esperantistoj tiam protestus).

If one person purposefully refuses to use the official root, that's one matter. If the entire language community refuses - that's an entirely different matter.

Esperantists did not "protestus" when people started using spontan/a instead of spontane/a, konvers/i instead of konversaci/i, deklar/o instead of deklaraci/o, etc. As I recall, many people were replacing the Hxo with Ko in words like arkitekturo even before the Akademio sanctioned such.

akueck:To decide between correct and not correct, there obviously have to be rules.

I think we are losing sight of the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive accounts of correctness, which I outlined in a previous post. Descriptively, the line between "correct" and "incorrect" is not a clear one, and there will frequently be grey zones.

From a prescriptive point of view, of course, almost everything is black and white. Nice and clean, with few uncertainties. I see the appeal. However, we might question whether prescriptivism is the best way to approach all uncertainties - or even a realistic way.

Tempodivalse:
I think we are losing sight of the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive accounts of correctness

I would think that "descriptivism" would not concern itself with correctness at all, but simply describe: tempodivalse says this, akueck says that, sudanglo says that, and leave it at that.

Bruso:

Tempodivalse:
I think we are losing sight of the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive accounts of correctness

I would think that "descriptivism" would not concern itself with correctness at all, but simply describe: tempodivalse says this, akueck says that, sudanglo says that, and leave it at that.

This is what I had in mind by "prescriptive" and "descriptive":

prescriptively wrong = violates some rule that has been made explicit by someone
descriptively wrong = violates an implicit rule of the language as it is actually used.

This is roughly the distinction used by linguists. Some more info

Tempodivalse:
This is what I had in mind by "prescriptive" and "descriptive":

prescriptively wrong = violates some rule that has been made explicit by someone
descriptively wrong = violates an implicit rule of the language as it is actually used.

In his "Kontribuoj al la norma esperantologio", Velger makes aware on the difference between "prescriptive" (corresponds to what he calls "leghojuro") and "descriptive" (corresponds to what he calls "kutimojuro") with respect to the situation in Esperanto and non-constructed languages:

Velger:
El la dirita evidentighas, ke iusence Esperanto, same kiel modernaj shtatoj, ne plu bazas sin sur kutimojuro, sed sur leghojuro. Tamen ech iuj esperantistoj jen neglektas, jen malkonfesas tiun unikan trajton de Esperanto, kiu estas la garantio de la pludauro de ghia lingvoteknologia supereco al chiuj naciaj lingvoj. Lingvistoj ghenerale sekvas jenajn (super)regulojn: "Ghenerala uzado neniam estas erara" kaj "hodiau eraro, morgau regulo". Tiuj reguloj tute konformas al la norma situacio de ordinaraj, kutimojuraj lingvoj, kiuj estas la normalaj objektoj de la lingvistiko. Sed ili ne konformas al la eksterordinara norma situacio de la leghe fiksita Fundamenta Esperanto. Por la Fundamenta Esperanto la diritaj reguloj validas nur parte, nome tie, kie ne ekzistas Fundamenta normo; alivorte: nur sub, neniel super la Fundamento. Trakti la diritajn regulojn kiel superajn al la Fundamento, tio logike implicas personan (norman) decidon; nome: malagnoski la leghan validecon, la netusheblecon eksplicite pretendatan de la Fundamento mem, kaj trakti ghin nur kiel nedevigan modelon. Tiamaniere oni anstatauas la Fundamentan Esperanton per alia, kutimojura, lingvistike pli "normala". Kiu vere volas fari tian decidon, tiu faru ghin kun plena konscio, sed ne pro nekonscia kaj senkritika sekvado de lingvistikaj pensokutimoj. Li konsciu, ke li ekludis alian "lingvoludon" ol tiun, kiun priskribas la Fundamento.- Kompreneble mi chi-sekve pritraktas nur la Fundamentan Esperanton, ne ties - el la vidpunkto de la Fundamento nelegitiman - kutimojuran varianton.

Spontana and spontanea are both in Wells' dictionary, and he is an Akademiano. M.C. Butler (also an Akademiano) gave spontanea but added that "shorter forms (spont, spontan) are increasingly used" - and that was nearly 50 years ago. All three forms occur in PIV 2005, edited by Michel Duc Goninaz, also an Akademiano.

So I wouldn't worry about it.

Miland:Spontana and spontanea are both in Wells' dictionary, and he is an Akademiano. M.C. Butler (also an Akademiano) gave spontanea but added that "shorter forms (spont, spontan) are increasingly used" - and that was nearly 50 years ago. All three forms occur in PIV 2005, edited by Michel Duc Goninaz, also an Akademiano.

So I wouldn't worry about it.

If there were a rule that in case of a positive statement from minimum three members of the Akademio de Esperanto, the new form ("formo nova") may be used, then O. K.

However, the Antauparolo specifies:

Antauparolo:
Tiel same por ke nia afero bone progresadu, estas necese, ke chiu esperantisto havu la plenan certecon, ke leghodonanto por li chiam estos ne ia persono, sed ia klare difinita verko.
[...]
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.

I think Miland's point is that a wide variety - even majority - of highly competent speakers have been using the unofficial terms extensively, sometimes for decades. So the prescriptivist position is simply irrelevant, and impossible to maintain due to natural evolutionary trends in language.

Again, I see nothing in Paragraph 8 that forbids use of unofficial forms - certainly not for quotidian purposes, at minimum.

The Lingvaj Respondoj, where the example of nav/ versus sxip/ is used, is not part of the Fundamento, and further, seems inapplicable to cases like spontan/, where a large majority of users (not just one person who happened not to like the form) naturally gravitated to an unofficial form.

Tempodivalse:I think Miland's point is that a wide variety - even majority - of highly competent speakers have been using the unofficial terms extensively, sometimes for decades. So the prescriptivist position is simply irrelevant, and impossible to maintain due to natural evolutionary trends in language.

You can also argue inversely: The fact that an Esperanto speaker simply uses a new form that has not been approved by an "autoritata centra institucio" gives evidence that the speaker has not enough competency.

Tempodivalse:Again, I see nothing in Paragraph 8 that forbids use of unofficial forms - certainly not for quotidian purposes, at minimum.

Paragraph 8 specifies that an "autoritata centra institucio" - and not anybody - may propose a new form ("formo nova").

This is in contrast to Paragraph 7 on new words ("novaj vortoj"); using them everybody may make Esperanto richer in expression capability.

Tempodivalse:The Lingvaj Respondoj, where the example of nav/ versus sxip/ is used, is not part of the Fundamento,

... but that "lingva respondo" illustrates the message of Paragraph 8.

Tempodivalse: and further, seems inapplicable to cases like spontan/, where a large majority of users (not just one person who happened not to like the form) naturally gravitated to an unofficial form.

But from what minimum number of users on a new form is O. K.? 3? 1000? 2000? You have to specify that number - which would be also a new private rule.

Sorry for my insisting but: Either we play according to accepted rules, or we don't.

You can also argue inversely: The fact that an Esperanto speaker simply uses a new form that has not been approved by an "autoritata centra institucio" gives evidence that the speaker has not enough competency.

What! Are you saying that all the Academians who use the unapproved forms are not competent enough? I find that simply implausible.

Sorry for my insisting but: Either we play according to accepted rules, or we don't.

I would agree, except your rules (or interpretation of them) don't seem to be the accepted ones, at least among Academians and other highly respected speakers, writers, and just regular fluent speakers.

But from what minimum number of users on a new form is O. K.? 3? 1000? 2000? You have to specify that number - which would be also a new private rule.

Well, how many grains of sand, exactly, do you need before you have a pile of sand? Or a beach? It's not possible to answer with a precise number.

Similarly, there is no clear line between "commonly used form" and "not commonly used form". No linguist would insist on a precise number dividing those two categories. Instead, it's a spectrum, with some forms that are obviously common (spontan/a), some that are obviously not common (jxog/i), and more dubious cases.

Your abstract model of Esperanto might fit into clear-cut boxes and categories, but nature - including Esperanto as it occurs in nature, among real people - often doesn't.