Tempodivalse:

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.

However, I cannot see why the old (and official) forms (e. g.: "hhor'", "spontane'", "meteorologi'") are too inappropriate compared to the respective new forms. And please note that Paragraph 8 of the "Antauparolo" requires such an inappropriateness to legitimate a new form.

Furthermore: A beginner might be confused and wonder what is the difference in the meaning of "spontane''" and "spontan'"? And if there is no difference, why is there a new form (parallel form) at all?

Tempodivalse:

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.

Occasionally a reader
twitters new forms. In the example, it is "apen'" for "apenau". The "Akademio de Esperanto" [url= http://h.akademio-de-esperanto.org/aktoj/aktoj2/8o... ]stated[/url]:

Aktoj_II_chapitro_II.B.4:
Lau Zamenhof -au estas “finajho neutrala kaj difinita” (“Letero pri la deveno de E-o”). Tamen, malgrau diversaj provoj, tiun finajhon la uzado neniam rigardis elfaligebla, kaj aliflanke ghi donas agrablan varion de la vortfinajhoj.

What is 'elfaligebla'? Dispensable?

Vestitor:What is 'elfaligebla'? Dispensable?

Looks like it to me, in context. I might have preferred nenecesa.

Vestitor:What is 'elfaligebla'? Dispensable?

More like droppable.

yyaann:

Vestitor:What is 'elfaligebla'? Dispensable?

More like droppable.

That captures the meaning, but its not an English word.

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

Esperanto is both hard and easy, and its vocabulary is big, although not ridiculously so. I lack fluency in Esperanto, simply because I rarely have the opportunity to meet fluent (and patient) speakers. I too, a native speaker of English and quite fluent in Italian, can feel for the hard task of speakers of Asian languages. The whole point of Esperanto is communication, connection across borders, building of bonds of friendship and mutual understanding. If we keep this end in view, and allow a certain pragmatism in the use of the language, we can allow even the here-and-now use of a nova vorto, say a Chinese phoneme with an Esperanto ending, provided it keeps the channel of communication open. Then, if the new "Chinese" root catches on, the novajxo may even find broad acceptance.