You maybe don't consider it stiff because it's what you're used to; you no longer notice the constraints which bother foreign learners. Poets who struggle against the constraints of word order, for instance Robert Browning, produce verse which many find unreadable. He still managed to express himself, so he "got it done", but your objection was an aesthetic one. I don't find adjectival agreement to be awkward and ugly, so I'm not sure how to discuss it as a problem.

Vestitor:In George Cox's Esperanto book from 1906 he tells beginning students to try and refrain from 'improving' the language; to instead write such things down and then review them after having acquired mastery.
It's probably decent advice, but it represents becoming accustomed to something, not a true judge of whether it is functionally indispensable.

Does it matter one way or the other? We are done with "improving" the language in any kind of organized fashion, and today, the language is only "improved" through the natural evolution of new vocabulary to describe new concepts, and through ordinary Esperanto speakers finding new ways to slice and dice our existing rules to say things a bit differently (within the constraints of the fundamento).

Sorry to say but at this point - yeah. Get used to it. It isn't changing. Maybe the accusative, adjectival agreement, choice of pronouns, whatever, aren't exactly to your taste, but those things are a take-it-or-leave-it situation at this point, and we are far beyond the point where it is anything more than a strictly theoretical discussion, whether something could or should have been done differently with them. And at this point it is a simple waste of breath to discuss whether we should in the future do something different with these basic attributes of the languages, because it simply isn't going to be changed, just because some learners aren't used to it or feel it could be simplified further.

You can always simplify further. And then you lose the redundancy that makes the language understandable in low-resolution circumstances, and you lose the precision. It's meant to be a full-featured language, not some kind of pidgin for basic communication only.

Vestitor:I know it's an annoying question, but what exactly would go awry in terms of understanding if there was no adjectival agreement? What purpose does it serve that would be apparent if it wasn't there?

In pronunciation terms it makes things awkward and a bit ugly.

Nothing much would go awry. The purpose is to add redundancy and thus clarity, and maybe to mimick most European languages.

However I think the question is moot in my opinion. I daresay almost any feature of Esperanto (not only agreement) could be dropped without anything going awry. But who will decide which features? And why? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It is possible to reduce most of Esperanto's features and still get legible text:

Por ke internaci lingv pov bon kaj regul progresad kaj por ke ĝi hav plen certec, ke ĝi neniam disfal kaj i facilanim paŝ de ĝi estont amik ne detru la labor de ĝi estint amik, ― plej neces antaŭ ĉio unu kondiĉ:

Here I removed a lot of redundancies and I might say the sentence is still understandable. The problem is: it is not Esperanto.

There is no "need" for agreement. Nor for cases, plurals, copula, derivational suffixes, inflectional suffixes, tenses, pronouns, voices, etc. Many languages can do without.

I don't like the verbs "esti" and "havi", what would go awry if they weren't there? Nothing much. However it wouldn't be Esperanto.

erinja:

Vestitor:In George Cox's Esperanto book from 1906 he tells beginning students to try and refrain from 'improving' the language; to instead write such things down and then review them after having acquired mastery.
It's probably decent advice, but it represents becoming accustomed to something, not a true judge of whether it is functionally indispensable.

Does it matter one way or the other? We are done with "improving" the language in any kind of organized fashion, and today, the language is only "improved" through the natural evolution of new vocabulary to describe new concepts, and through ordinary Esperanto speakers finding new ways to slice and dice our existing rules to say things a bit differently (within the constraints of the fundamento).

Sorry to say but at this point - yeah. Get used to it. It isn't changing. Maybe the accusative, adjectival agreement, choice of pronouns, whatever, aren't exactly to your taste, but those things are a take-it-or-leave-it situation at this point, and we are far beyond the point where it is anything more than a strictly theoretical discussion, whether something could or should have been done differently with them. And at this point it is a simple waste of breath to discuss whether we should in the future do something different with these basic attributes of the languages, because it simply isn't going to be changed, just because some learners aren't used to it or feel it could be simplified further.

You can always simplify further. And then you lose the redundancy that makes the language understandable in low-resolution circumstances, and you lose the precision. It's meant to be a full-featured language, not some kind of pidgin for basic communication only.

That's a lot of words for something considered a waste of breath.

I already know that further change isn't going to happen. I know it has solidified (and it has, in a very fundamentalist way too), but the question is not without merit. From this thread it strikes me that it is useful for poetry and a small number of possible misunderstandings, which all other languages deal with by clarification of meaning. If it was possible to remove all such problems with grammatical features, there wouldn't be so many discussions of meaning, and yet they by far make up the largest number of posts.

Anyone who thinks something like 'longajn radikojn' isn't an unnecessary mouthful for the majority of normal usage, and which might well sit next to other similar adjectival elements in a sentence, is just being obtuse for the sake of it.

opalo:You maybe don't consider it stiff because it's what you're used to; you no longer notice the constraints which bother foreign learners. Poets who struggle against the constraints of word order, for instance Robert Browning, produce verse which many find unreadable. He still managed to express himself, so he "got it done", but your objection was an aesthetic one. I don't find adjectival agreement to be awkward and ugly, so I'm not sure how to discuss it as a problem.

That could be said to anyone about their native language, so that eventually all languages become 'stiff' merely through good acquaintance!

Browning didn't 'struggle' with word order any more than any other poet who has to be creative with the language they are using. In fact I think it can successfully be argued that poetry doesn't necessary place clarity of meaning by means of correct grammar above rule-breaking, wordplay and manipulation of the structure for special effect.

If you don't find adjectival agreement to be awkward and ugly there is no discussion to have, which makes me wonder why you are having it.

But what exactly is wrong with "longajn radikojn"? Do you consider "coin" to be harder to say than "can" or "car"?

Ĉu vi vidis miajn longajn ruĝajn radikojn?

Vestitor:I know it has solidified (and it has, in a very fundamentalist way too), but the question is not without merit.

Sorry, where's the merit in making long discussions of a change to the very basic grammar of the language, a change that will never happen? The only "merit" I see is to encourage beginners to come up with their own modified versions of the language and then get disappointed when they present their "improvements" in the community and get shouted down or laughed down.

I don't see anyone laughing, just people getting aerated.

It doesn't much matter to me that the 'Esperanto bosses' dismiss questioning of unusual grammar features, or that the people who just swallow everything given to them can't see any issues.

I'm not asking a stupid question, it's just that Esperantists still smarting from the Ido schism are touchy about this sort of discussion.

I'm going to carry on doing things the official Esperanto way, but I find some of the multiple plural endings clunky. Reiterating that Esperanto is not going to change isn't a very sophisticated approach to take.

Vestitor:Reiterating that Esperanto is not going to change isn't a very sophisticated approach to take.

Since Esperanto is not going to change, what sophisticated alternative approach would you suggest?