Tempodivalse:

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

On a somewhat side note, isn't it funny how prescriptivist some descriptivists can be when it's their pet grammar rules that get violated?

orthohawk:On a somewhat side note, isn't it funny how prescriptivist some descriptivists can be when it's their pet grammar rules that get violated?

Wow, that was not such a kind thing to say, and so unnecessary.

On a somewhat side note, isn't it funny how prescriptivist some descriptivists can be when it's their pet grammar rules that get violated?

I sense this was a riposte directed at me, but I'm not sure what is being alluded to.

erinja:

orthohawk:On a somewhat side note, isn't it funny how prescriptivist some descriptivists can be when it's their pet grammar rules that get violated?

Wow, that was not such a kind thing to say, and so unnecessary.

how in the world is that not kind? it's the truth. Hey, newsflash! It even applies to ME sometimes!

Tempodivalse:

On a somewhat side note, isn't it funny how prescriptivist some descriptivists can be when it's their pet grammar rules that get violated?

I sense this was a riposte directed at me, but I'm not sure what is being alluded to.

actually no one here on Lernu.

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

What is obvious to one person may not be so to another, and people might not agree about matters of opinion, including what the rules should be.

The assumption that grammar is a matter of rules is to mistake an abstraction (a theoretical model of a language) for the reality it represents. Even Zamenhof entrusted his language to a living community, at the time that the predecessor of the Akademio was set up and the Fundamento was declared "untouchable".

Because it is the whole community that ultimately owns the language, there will always be a creative tension between inventors of new forms and those who think that any development ought to confirm to their design of the Perfect Sausage Machine. A good example is the unending debate about neologismoj.

The late great Claude Piron (himself an Akademiano) in an interview made the point that la lingvo neniam ĉesis evolui, ne pro premo de ia instanco, sed nature, kiel ĉiu alia lingvo, pro la uzado. I translate: "The language never ceased evolving, not because of the pressure of any authority, but naturally, like all other languages, through usage."

Tempodivalse:

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.

Why?

Tempodivalse:

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.

The accepted rules are well documented in the Bulonja Deklaracio:

Bulonja_Deklaracio:
La sola unu fojon por ĉiam deviga por ĉiuj Esperantistoj fundamento de la lingvo Esperanto estas la verketo "Fundamento de Esperanto", en kiu neniu havas la rajton fari ŝanĝon. Se iu dekliniĝas de la reguloj kaj modeloj donitaj en la dirita verko, li neniam povas pravigi sin per la vortoj "tiel deziras aŭ konsilas la aŭtoro de Esperanto".

Tempodivalse:

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.

In case of Esperanto, you also do not need to specify such a number. Reason: What it is decisive for being correct or incorrect Esperanto is specified by means of rules given in a work, namely the "Fundamento de Esperanto". See above on the "Bulonja Deklaracio".

Tempodivalse: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 example "spontan'" is a new form to the official form "spontane'", and therefore incorrect Esperanto until this new form will have been officially approved.

Your other example "jhog'i" is an international word useable as per Rule 15, and therefore correct Esperanto even without any official approval.

Tempodivalse: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.

It is not "my" model but the model that Zamenhof presented to representatives of Esperanto speakers in 1905 and that they accepted.

Miland: A good example is the unending debate about neologismoj.

Please give some examples on what you mean by "neologismoj".

akueck:Please give some examples on what you mean by "neologismoj".

A recent example might be mojosa. More familiar might be stumbli. Fatraso is an older example.

Their acceptance is liable to depend on their convenience to Esperantists in actual use, whether in speaking or writing, which cannot be reduced to formulae. My own suggestion for a neologismo would be tajŝi for "cope".

Miland:

akueck:Please give some examples on what you mean by "neologismoj".

A recent example might be mojosa.

"Mojos'a" (meaning: "cool") can be characterized as follows:

a) Not official(ized).
b) Not international.
c) Not synonyme to any official(ized) root (therefore "mojos'" is not a new form in terms of Paragraph 8 of the "Antauparolo" and does not require an official approval).
d) In terms of Paragraph 7 of the "Antauparolo", "mojos'a" is a new word and useable as such in accordance with the standard even without official approval.

No discussion necessary.

Please note that with respect to Esperanto, Zamenhof used the term "neologismo" only for new forms in terms of Paragraph 8 of the "Antauparolo":

Zamenhof:
Dum la enkonduko de novaj vortoj estas afero tute bagatela kaj ne bezonas ech la permeson de la Lingva Komitato, la enkonduko de tio, kion mi nomas "neologismoj" (t. e. de novaj formoj, kiuj devos konkuradi kun formoj ekzistantaj jam en la "Fundamento") estas pasho tiel gravega kaj tiel skuanta, ke ni povas tion chi permesi al ni nur tre malofte (ne pli ofte ol unu fojon en 5-10 jaroj).

Miland:More familiar might be stumbli. Fatraso is an older example.

They are useable as new words, too; argumentation analogous to "mojos'a".