How would one best express the idea of "Best wishes to you and yours?" The regards would be meant for the individual, his family, and the members of his community. Would any of these be good?

Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj viaj
Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj la viaj
Elokorajn salutujn al vi kaj ĉiuj viaj
Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj ĉiu via

Warmest thanks!

I would say all four options are correct, except for maybe the second one. The reason is that I would not use an article before a possessive. According to what I have seen so far, possessives don't need to be introduced by an article. Therefore, "la viaj" would not be possible. But the first one would. And also the other two at the end. They just give slightly different nuances to a meaning which is basically the same.

Bonan tagon.

MarcDiaz:I would say all four options are correct, except for maybe the second one. The reason is that I would not use an article before a possessive. According to what I have seen so far, possessives don't need to be introduced by an article. Therefore, "la viaj" would not be possible. But the first one would. And also the other two at the end. They just give slightly different nuances to a meaning which is basically the same.

Bonan tagon.

From http://lernu.net/gramatiko/difiniloj

Prohibition of la

Don't use la with a sentence element which already has another determiner. Other determiners are possessive pronouns, correlatives ending in U, A or ES, the particle ambaŭ, and the partially determining unu:

Mia dorso doloras. - My back hurts.

Not: La mia dorso doloras.(But it is possible to say la mia/via..., if it is not followed by a noun.)

And from: http://lernu.net/gramatiko/pronomoj

When a possessive pronoun appears alone without a noun following, it is not a determiner, and does not show definiteness. To show definiteness you normally add la:

Tiu ĉi libro estas mia. - This book is mine.

Tiu ĉi libro estas la mia. - This book is mine.

Mia aŭto estas difektita. Ni provu la vian. La vian = vian aŭton. - My car is not working. Let's try yours. La vian =yours, your car.

You are thinking in English. For me "viaj" without article or without a noun after the possesive doesn't make any sense. In fact the article is for cases like this. I wouldn't use the first proposal and before to use the two last ones I would say “Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj viaj amatoj / viaj uloj / via ularo / via familio kaj amikoj”. So the second one is probably the one to use.

Ĝis, Novatago.

Apparently, the general rule is that articles cannot be used before possessives. But there is one exception, which is when no noun follows the possessive. In that case, you can either use or leave the article out, depending on whether you want to express definiteness. So then, I suppose all four options which jkph00 wrote would be correct.

Novatago, you said you wouldn't use the first option, but according to that website, it would be grammatical, right? The way I see it, you have the choice to either show definiteness or not. If you choose not to show it, the sentence without the article would be possible. I suppose then, that your choice of not using the first option would be due to personal preferences, but not to the actual grammaticality of the sentence, right?

You also don't seem to like the last two sentences too much. Why is that? Are they also grammatically incorrect or is it just a matter of personal taste? I understand that your suggestions might be also correct, but they are a bit longer, and if one prefers a more concise style, the sentences jkph00 suggested might sound even better. So does your preference for your own suggestions make jkph00's wrong sentences?

novatago:You are thinking in English. For me "viaj" without article or without a noun after the possesive doesn't make any sense. In fact the article is for cases like this. I wouldn't use the first proposal and before to use the two last ones I would say “Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj viaj amatoj / viaj uloj / via ularo / via familio kaj amikoj”. So the second one is probably the one to use.

I totally agree. Whenever one moves to another language you generally take on the forms of that language and it means saying things in ways that don't tally with forms/idioms in, particularly, one's native language.

How can you both be so sure that I was thinking in English when neither of you was inside of my head at that moment?

Actually, I did not think the second option was incorrect due to influence from English. I told you before why I thought it was incorrect. The real cause is that articles are not generally used before possessives in Esperanto. That's all.

MarcDiaz:
Novatago, you said you wouldn't use the first option, but according to that website, it would be grammatical, right? The way I see it, you have the choice of either show definiteness or not. If you choose not to show it, the sentence without the article would be possible. I suppose then, that your choice of not using the first option would be due to personal preferences, but not to the actual grammaticality of the sentence, right?

Again: “To show definiteness you normally add la”. You don't understand that in english definiteness is there even if you don't see it, is no a question of choice by mood, but a question of need in a context (remember this sentences: Tiu ĉi libro estas mia. - Tiu ĉi libro estas la mia.. They don't have the same meaning even if in english seem that). The first one is a wrong option, and wouldn't use the two last ones for the same reason, I wouldn't use the first one, they made ask myself “ciuj viaj kio? miaj katoj? miaj najbaroj?”. Of course I would understand the meaning but that not makes it correct. I'm not tottaly, just almost, sure if they are wrong but I'm sure the first one it is. In these context, yours = la viaj. You wouldn't see as correct if I would say in that context "the yours", right? This is the same.

Anyway, a native english speaker with a good knowledge of Esperanto shall give you an explanation that you may be accept. After the explanations I already gave you I only can tell you "It's that way, accept it, even if you aren't agree”.

Ĝis, Novatago.

Hi again Novatago,

Let's see. I know that to show definiteness you normally add "la". I never questioned that.

I don't think that the concept of definiteness and how it is expressed in English makes any difference to the subject we are discussing, since those sentences were in Esperanto, and it is the Esperanto grammar that we need to follow here.

You seem to think that if we don't use definitiness (i.e., the article) the noun to which "viaj" refers can't be inferred. That's why you said that the absence of article could make us think that the possessive "viaj" could refer to cats, neighbors or whatever. However, the same thing would be true if we use the article. If you say "la viaj", you still can't know if the possessive "viaj" refers to cats, neighbors or whatever. The noun to which the possessive "viaj" refers can't be inferred by grammatical definiteness. Instead, it has to be inferred by context. By making a logical connection between the possessive pronoun and what has been said before or what seems more likely. These sentences are fixed expressions. Their use is quite frequent and the connection made between this possessive pronoun and the element of reality it refers to has traditionally been "your relatives, the people you love or care about". So this inference is normally made by most people. Most people would understand it. And its comprehension does not depend on the choice of definiteness or indefiniteness.

Definiteness means that the article is used to show that the noun it accompanies has been used before and is, threfore, known to both the speaker and the listener. In other words, the noun they refer to is a particular one, and not just any indefinite object there might be.

Maybe it will be easier to see with an example:

Mi havas libron. Ĉi tie estas multaj libroj. Tiu estas de Maria, tiu de Filipo kaj tiu ĉi libro estas la mia.

In this sentence it makes sense to use definiteness, because you want to point out a particular book. A book both the speaker and the listener know about, because it has been talked about before, and therefore, they can't talk about it as just any other book. It is the book. (The) mine.*

However, if you talk about any book that has not been introduced before, it doesn't really make much sense to use definiteness. Let's see it with an example:

-Kies estas ĉi tiu libro? - Ĝi estas mia.

In this example, the word "book" has just appeared in the conversation out of nowhere. There was no previous reference to any book whatsoever. Therefore, the use of definiteness here would be questionable, to say the least. Indefiniteness makes more sense. If you said "ĝi estas la mia", people would assume that this book is somehow known to both the speaker and listener, because it has been talked about before, which in my example is not the case.

In the example sentences jkph00 has written before, the relatives, loved people or those he means by "viaj" have not been mentioned before. Of course, that was an example, and we would need the context. But if the people were not mentioned before, I feel that indefiniteness (and therefore, absence of the article) woud actually make more sense.

So, are you still so sure that the first sentence is incorrect? Again, as I see it and according to what I read in the grammar in the link you wrote before, both possibilities would be correct and their choice would depend on whether you want to express definiteness or not. And I suspect, in this case it might make more sense not to use it, since the most likely situation is that his relatives and so on have not been mentioned before.

And when it comes to the last two sentences, you say you are not sure whether they are correct or not. To me they sound correct. To you, they might not, but can you prove it somehow with grammar?

To me, "accept what I say because it is that way even if you don't agree" is not really an argument and it doesn't prove anything. The only thing it might show is arrogance, stubbornness and lack of rationality on the part of the person who makes such a statement.

You also said that a native English-speaker will give me a definition that I might accept. Well, we can't know that. But one thing is for sure: English never uses articles before possessive pronouns, so to them this system might be quite complicated. However, your native language, Spanish, does use articles before possessive pronouns sometimes. And sometimes it does not. And the choice of when to use them and when not to seems to be exactly the same as in Esperanto. Therefore, it should be easier for you than for native English-speakers. But somehow, it seems that it was not so easy as I might have expected.

MarcDiaz:To you, they might not, but can you prove it somehow with grammar?

In Esperanto there exists an easy way to determine whether some statement is grammtical or not:

1. Check whether there is positive or negative proof of its usage in the Fundamento.
2. Check whether there is positive or negative proof of its usage in Z's works.
3. Check whether there is positive or negative proof of its usage in the works of Esperanto authors.

Ad 1: I couldn't find "la + possessive pronoun" in the Fundamento. Nor could I find an explicit prohibition against it.
Ad 2: I could indeed find such a construction in Zamenhof's works: "Vi forbruligos ĉe tio vin kaj la viajn", "Liaj okuloj brilis kiel la viaj, li havis belegajn longajn harojn, sed malriĉajn vestojn.".

Hence, "Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj la viaj" is proper Esperanto. Taking into consideration the pattern of "Vi forbruligos ĉe tio vin kaj la viajn", I daresay it is to be recommended over "Vi forbruligos ĉe tio vin kaj viajn".