Aren't the suffixes -ing- and -uj- a bit redundant? (Follow-up question: how do you say redundant in E-o?) What's the difference between them? When would I use one as opposed to the other? Is there a root word that uses both?

What's the difference between tial and ĉar?

Dankon!

-ing- means like a socket (A sword is glavo, and a scabbard is glavingo), whereas -uj- is like a container (glavujo would be a container full of swords), or for the name of a country (English is angla, England is Anglujo). NB: The use for countries is now outdated, and -i- is used instead (Anglio).

Ĉar is used before a reason (I went to sleep because I was tired - Mi ekdormis ĉar mi estis laca), and tial refers to a reason that is already known (For that reason, I went to sleep - Tial, mi ekdormis)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, experienced Esperantists.

"Ĉar" and "tial" have similar meanings, but they are not quite the same. Hopefully the following examples will help illustrate their differences.

I think of the two as:

Ĉar = Because.
Tial = Therefore (or "For that reason").

So:

"Mi malsatas, tial mi manĝos".
(I am hungry, therefore I am going to eat.)

"Mi malsatas, ĉar mi ne manĝis".
(I am hungry, because I didn't eat.)

FilanatorNB:The use for countries is now outdated, and -i- is used instead (Anglio).

The replacement is actually -io, and -uj- is still retained by a small group of (mostly experienced) speakers, because -io sort of messes things up.

The point of the matter is that there are countries whose name naturally ends in -io, like Tanzanio, Aŭstralio, Ĉilio, and a few others; for them, the letter "i" is part of the word root. The rule to determine the name of those who live in a certain country works according to the name of that country: if it contains the suffix -uj- (Francujo, Belgujo, Germanujo, ...), then the simple noun (franco, belgo, germano) will be the inhabitant; if you didn't use any suffix (Kanado, Brazilo, Novzelando, ...), then you shall add the suffix -an- to the root of the country name. For example, en Italujo loĝas italoj, en Usono loĝas usonanoj. And of course, -an- is used for those country names ending naturally in -io: Aŭstraliano, Tanzaniano, Alĝeriano, and so on. It is important to understand that the word roots tanzan-, alĝer-, ĉil-, etc, even if they exist (and some do, like aŭstral-), cannot be used to describe the inhabitants of those countries, or as adjectives pertaining to those countries (the Chilean volcanoes are la ĉiliaj vulkanoj). In a way, by looking at name of a country, you can instantly see what to do to get the name of the people in that country.

However, when -io comes along to replace -ujo, the countries whose name ends naturally in -io get mixed with all the rest, and we can't be sure anymore what to do to get the name of the people. You have to know by heart that Italio is actually a variant of Italujo, and not a whole root (Itali-), to which you would need to add -an- (Here too it is important to understand that Italiano wouldn't be accepted, and that the Italian language is itala lingvo, not italia). Esperanto in general should discourage the need for memorization, but that solution, unfortunately, goes in the wrong direction.

In my opinion, -io is so widespread that it is going to stay; moreover, if I am not mistaken, the Akademio accepted it. I myself use it, but I am not sure that it is a definite improvement compared to -uj-, at least from a grammatical point of view. This I will say, it sure looks better

I think of "tial" as having a meaning like "that's why". Mi ne malsatas. Tial mi ne manĝas. I'm not hungry. That's why I'm not eating.

Also, let's say I didn't know why someone didn't come, and a friend informs me of the reason. I might say "Hoooo, *tial* li ne venis!"

I use "do" for "therefore". Mi ne malsatas, do mi ne manĝas.

Ĉar is definitely "because", in any case. Use "ĉar" whenever you would use "because" in English.

erinja:I might say "Hoooo, *tial* li ne venis!"

By the way, i often notice that english writers use the star * in messages. I'm not sure of its signification.
Is this to insist on a specific word ?
As french, i would use the ____ or the italic or the bold

Frankouche:i often notice that english writers use the star * in messages. I'm not sure of its signification.

It gives emphasis, just like bold. Used a lot wherever you cannot give styles to the text.

Ok thanks!

I recently read the book "Rusoj logas en Rusujo", and found the argument put forward for the use of the -uj- suffix by Esperantists like Renato Corsetti and Bertilo Wennergren so convincing I decided to change. During the UK, I noticed that Prof. John Wells (President of the Academy) used the -uj- ending himself.

At last year's Somera Festivalo in Britain there was an argument about Britio vs Britujo. Paul Gubbins (who partly authored Rusoj loĝas en Rusujo) supported the ujo suffix, but David Kelso (if I understood him correctly) felt that it could further the identification of country with ethnic group and so be racist. The Esperanto-Asocio de Britio is not likely to change its name in the foreseeable future. As for me, I am on balance somewhat in favour of io but am quite capable of using ujo without thinking.