akueck:

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

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

I tend to view words like "grumbli" as neologismoj (as in neologismo vs skematismo). Grumbli can easily be expressed as plendmurmuri, so there really was no actual need for grumbli.

In my experience, most neologisms are so similar to English words that I get the idea that it's lazy english speakers who are responsible for most of them (lazy as in, they don't want to have to go to the trouble of compounding Fundamenta roots to get the word they need).

orthohawk:
I tend to view words like "grumbli" as neologismoj (as in neologismo vs skematismo). Grumbli can easily be expressed as plendmurmuri,

Also "grumbl'i" is a new word ("nova vorto"), like "mojos'a", "stumbl'i", and "fatras'o". Refer to my message of 2015-08-05 10:01:36).

By the way: Why not using the Zamenhof/Fundamento terms "international word", "new word", and "new form" instead of the ambiguous term "neologismo"?

orthohawk:so there really was no actual need for grumbli.

If a word turns out be an international word or a new word, then discussion on "is it correct Esperanto?" is unnecessary: Off course it is. In such a case, the discussion can be only about style of speech. And to the latter, non-"Fundamento" criteria like "there really was no actual need for ..." belong.

tommjames:
The Fundamento is a small set of documents that by its nature will not cover every word or mode of expression possible in the language. IMO we should leave room for the language to evolve - so long as it doesn't break clear rules.

People who have not understood the "Antauparolo" of the "Fundamento" tend to see the following contrast:

On the one hand, there is a need to express new objects and new concepts like "smartphone" and "cool" (in behavior).

On the other hand, there is the "Fundamento", which seems to be braking language evolution because the Fundamento does not have simple expressions for such new objects and new concepts.

What those people overlook is that the "Fundamento" has the means:

Rule 15 allows to use "smartfon'o" because it is international; an official approval is not necessary.

Paragraph 7 of the "Antauparolo" allows to use new words, like "mojos's" for "cool", even if they have not been officialized.

And Paragraph 8 allows that the "autoritata centra institicio" may propose new forms to official forms, e. g.: "kemi'" for "hhemi'".

tommjames:The Fundamento is a small set of documents that by its nature will not cover every word or mode of expression possible in the language. IMO we should leave room for the language to evolve - so long as it doesn't break clear rules.

Amen. One example might be the use of an apostrophe after a root, in poetry. I wouldn't expect there to be too many irregularities of structure that win popular approval, though.

akueck:

orthohawk:
I tend to view words like "grumbli" as neologismoj (as in neologismo vs skematismo). Grumbli can easily be expressed as plendmurmuri,

Also "grumbl'i" is a new word ("nova vorto"), like "mojos'a", "stumbl'i", and "fatras'o". Refer to my message of 2015-08-05 10:01:36).

By the way: Why not using the Zamenhof/Fundamento terms "international word", "new word", and "new form" instead of the ambiguous term "neologismo"?

orthohawk:so there really was no actual need for grumbli.

If a word turns out be an international word or a new word, then discussion on "is it correct Esperanto?" is unnecessary: Off course it is. In such a case, the discussion can be only about style of speech. And to the latter, non-"Fundamento" criteria like "there really was no actual need for ..." belong.

But if we're going to just import words for new concepts (instead of building them from Fundamenta roots), Esperanto will be robbed of one of the main things that make it "better" than national languages; freedom from the need to learn a humongous vocab list before we can really use the language.

and to touch on my comment about neologisms being mostly similar to english words? keep it up and we'll end up with just English with esperanto endings.

And Paragraph 8 allows that the "autoritata centra institicio" may propose new forms to official forms, e. g.: "kemi'" for "hhemi'".

I think the chief point in contention is whether individual speakers can use new forms prior to them being officialised, especially when the new forms already have mass appeal. As I recall, many speakers were using the K in certain HX words, such as in kemi/o, well before the Academy made it official.

The pattern is quite clear: a new form becomes popular (kemi/o, spontan/a, etc.), and only then the Academy approves it; not the other way around.

What you are demanding is paradoxical: If people cannot use alternate forms before they are approved, why should the "autoritata centra institucio" bother with proposing new forms at all? After all, in order for the Academy to be motivated to propose the new form, it must first see that the new form is already widely popular among speakers - the Academy does not work in a vacuum.

Tempodivalse:What you are demanding is paradoxical: If people cannot use alternate forms before they are approved, why should the "autoritata centra institucio" bother with proposing new forms at all? After all, in order for the Academy to be motivated to propose the new form, it must first see that the new form is already widely popular among speakers - the Academy does not work in a vacuum.

Words become official in two ways - the Academy suggests something and makes it official, or else a word is in usage and then the Academy takes it an makes it official.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter a lot what any one of us thinks on this matter - we are a diverse bunch, and there will always be some people who refuse to use new words until they are official, and other people who freely use every new word that crosses their path, and the vast majority of people who are somewhere in between. Like it or not, someone will always be using unofficial words, and so words do have a chance to gain currency before the Academy decides to make them official. In this sense, it is up to each individual Esperantist. Do I need this word enough to use it, and do I agree with the choices made in creating this word? This is true for ALL words, both new roots that are coined and new constructions based on old roots. "Poŝtelefono" is the word for cellular/mobile phone. It didn't have to be that word, it could have been any number of constructions, but that's what gained currency.

orthohawk:
But if we're going to just import words for new concepts (instead of building them from Fundamenta roots), Esperanto will be robbed of one of the main things that make it "better" than national languages; freedom from the need to learn a humongous vocab list before we can really use the language.

and to touch on my comment about neologisms being mostly similar to english words? keep it up and we'll end up with just English with esperanto endings.

My opinion exactly. Esperanto is already hard enough for speakers of Asian languages without making it even closer to English and its ridiculously big vocab.

erinja:

Tempodivalse:What you are demanding is paradoxical: If people cannot use alternate forms before they are approved, why should the "autoritata centra institucio" bother with proposing new forms at all? After all, in order for the Academy to be motivated to propose the new form, it must first see that the new form is already widely popular among speakers - the Academy does not work in a vacuum.

Words become official in two ways [...]
Like it or not, someone will always be using unofficial words ...

Erinja, from your message, I conclude that you have not understood what Tempodivalse means:

He does not put the focus on any not official root but on new forms only, i. e.: "formoj novaj" in terms of Paragraph 8 of the "Antauparolo" to the "Fundamento de Esperanto"; examples:
not approved "spontan'" vs. official "spontane'";
not approved "korus'" vs. Fundamental "hhor'".

He is right with the dilemma:

On the one hand, no one shall use such not approved new forms but shall use the respective official/Fundamental form.

On the other hand, if no one uses the not approved new form, the "autoritata centra institucio" (ACI) will never see a reason to approve the new form.

My understanding is:

New forms may be proposed to the ACI, and ACI may declare them tolerated or even officialize them. There are example cases, like "konvers'".

Unfortunately, the present Akademio de Esperanto is not aware of this formerly applied good practice.

He is right with the dilemma:

On the one hand, no one shall use such not approved new forms but shall use the respective official/Fundamental form.

On the other hand, if no one uses the not approved new form, the "autoritata centra institucio" (ACI) will never see a reason to approve the new form.

Thank you for acknowledging the problem.

I think this is precisely the problem with your approach: trying to legislate a living language in this way is impossible. It is, if nothing else, unenforceable, as many decades of precedent have already demonstrated - kind of like ordering a coastline not to erode.