Miland:

patrik: these private ideas are approved during the First Esperanto Congress, and thus are legally binding.

Where does it say that the First Esperanto Congress approved the private ideas? They approved the Fundamento, of which they are not a part.

Let's go back to that paragraph:

Zamenhof:"La ideoj, kiujn mi supre esprimis pri la Fundamento de Esperanto, prezentas dume nur mian privatan opinion. Leĝan sankcion ili ricevos nur en tia okazo, se ili estos akceptitaj de la unua internacia kongreso de esperantistoj, al kiu tiu ĉi verko kune kun sia antaŭparolo estos prezentita."

Now, this part explictly states that these ideas, if accepted by the First Esperanto Congress, will receive legal sanction (if I translated correctly). If that wasn't the case, then the entire "Fundamento" is worthless. When the congress accepted the "Fundamento", everything written in it, even its errors, become unchangable in effect.

If the "Antaŭparolo" is not in effect as you say, then what is the basis for the "Aldonoj"? It is only in the "Antaŭparolo" (and nowhere else), that Zamenhof allows additions, not changes, to the Fundamento (the "Aldono al la Fundamento"), which are to made by an "authoritative central institution" [which is, of course, the then-"Lingva Komitato", which is succeeded by the "Akademio de Esperanto"]. Why does the Akademio follow these private ideas if these weren't binding in the first place?

Miland:1. The antaŭparolo to the Fundamento was written in July 2005, before the first World Congress, and before Zamenhof handed ownership of the language over to the committee of users

I'm assuming that should be '1905' (or something round then) rather than '2005'?

In response to the main discussion, I would have to say that I simply do not care whether Esperanto is the world language chosen by the UN or whether we end up speaking Pashto - as long as whatever language they promote and make easy to learn.

Bias, simplicity, all of that can be overcome so easily provided that whoever is promoting the language does a good job of it. Take for example French. It's hard, illogical and not necessarily the most important language to all peoples of the globe but due to it's massive support by various organisations, and due to the mass of resources on French, learning, speaking and participating in the language can be easy and enjoyable.

On the flip-side, Arabic, Mandarin and similar languages in importance can be very hard to learn because of the lack of resources, or abundance of confusing or conflicting resources.

I think the reason English has had such a great time as lingua franca is because of the readily availability of oppurtunities to learn and practice the language. Many household goods, television, movies etc are often in English despite being distributed internationally. Take for example on the other hand IKEA of Sweden - the most Swedish you'll get from that are the product names (which, half the time don't really have any relevance - a clothes-rack we have is called something that translates to 'shop assistant' for example).

So whatever the UN chooses, be it Esperanto, Lingua Franca Nova, a derivation of Toki Pona etc (all of which I wouldn't mind), or be it Mandarin, Arabic, English, or Cockatielish ( my preferred choice), they should really promote it, and provide good, clear, simple and learnable resources. The same simple instructions they would give to people who are at risk of getting HIV they should use for teaching this language.

Or we should just wait until we can download it into peoples minds like in the Matrix, which would be quicker for teaching Cockatielish than teaching people from scratch

patrik:If the "Antaŭparolo" is not in effect as you say, then what is the basis for the "Aldonoj"?

The basis is the authority of the Akademio as the successor of the Lingva Komitato and so the legitimate representative of the community to whom Zamenhof handed ownership of the language at the first International Congress. The Antaŭparolo as such has no authority.

ceigered:

Miland:1. The antaŭparolo to the Fundamento was written in July 2005[/g/quote]I'm assuming that should be '1905' (or something round then) rather than '2005'?

Prave, well-spotted!

Miland:

patrik:If the "Antaŭparolo" is not in effect as you say, then what is the basis for the "Aldonoj"?

The basis is the authority of the Akademio as the successor of the Lingva Komitato and so the legitimate representative of the community to whom Zamenhof handed ownership of the language at the first International Congress. The Antaŭparolo as such has no authority.

Sorry to interrupt, but could that then be interpreted as, quite basically, that Esperanto is the people's language and what they as a whole decide to do with it is their responsibility? (Of course there would be no way to stop them if they tried to turn the language into anything they wanted even if they were told not to, because if the common EO community made a universal choice there would be no one opposing them of course)

I'm trying to make sense of the conversation at the moment but it is quite fast-paced and lively!

Prave, well-spotted!

Nedankinde, I was just a bit confused at first thinking 'wait I thought 2005 was well after Zamenhoff's time?'

Miland:

patrik:If the "Antaŭparolo" is not in effect as you say, then what is the basis for the "Aldonoj"?

The basis is the authority of the Akademio as the successor of the Lingva Komitato and so the legitimate representative of the community to whom Zamenhof handed ownership of the language at the first International Congress. The Antaŭparolo as such has no authority.

But the "Antaŭparolo" spelled out the powers of the "Lingva Komitato".

The Fundamento de Esperanto includes provision for making old forms archaic and (ultimately) obsolete. It also places severe limitations on the powers which may be assumed by any linguistic authority in the Esperanto movement.

According to this citation, the Fundamento has certain provisions defining the powers of any linguistic authority on the language. Where is it written? In the "Ekzercaro"? Nope. In the "Fundamenta Gramatiko"? Nope. In the "Universala Vortaro"? Nope. Only in the "Antaŭparolo".

Source: Broadribb, Donald "Esperanto and the ideology of constructed languages" http://donh.best.vwh.net/Languages/broadribb.html

patrik:But the "Antaŭparolo" spelled out the powers of the "Lingva Komitato".

The "Antaŭparolo" only vaguely mentions the idea of an authority that could introduce 'official additions', and is not part of the Fundamento. anyway.

The Fundamento de Esperanto includes provision for making old forms archaic and (ultimately) obsolete. It also places severe limitations on the powers which may be assumed by any linguistic authority in the Esperanto movement.

According to this citation

This itself is a private opinion that does not have the authority either of the Fundamento or an official act of the Akademio.

My concern is that unless the authority of the Fundamento and the Akademio are maintained as sacrosanct, governments (possibly manipulated by groups with their own agenda) could impose change on the language from outside, using as a pretext the passage from the Antaŭparolo. Esperanto should be protected from any potential new Couturats or Beaufronts with a zeal for reform that causes them to attempt by stealth to impose change on the community that it would not accept voluntarily in full knowledge of the situation.

Miland:My concern is that unless the authority of the Fundamento and the Akademio are maintained as sacrosanct, governments (possibly manipulated by groups with their own agenda) could impose change on the language from outside, using as a pretext the passage from the Antaŭparolo. Esperanto should be protected from any potential new Couturats or Beaufronts with a zeal for reform that causes them to attempt by stealth to impose change on the community that it would not accept voluntarily in full knowledge of the situation.

Good point. In case this condition will be fulfilled, the Esperanto community as a whole should play a role in this process. We must be vigilant, in order to avert a possible disaster.

But what changes will make the Esperanto of tommorrow unlike the Esperanto of today? This leads us to a very important question: what are most distinguishing characteristics of Esperanto, the things that if changed would make it un-Esperanto?

Claude Piron, in classifying Esperanto, distinguished three language planes:

1) the kernel or intrinsic (fundamental, essential) plane, which refers to basic type of grammar and of derivation (morphology).
2) the intermediate plane, which refers to syntax and customary word order
3) and the extrinsic plane, which refers to the actual forms of words (orthography) and the system of sounds (phonology).

The intrinsic plane carries the identity of the language and changing it would be tantamount to creating a new language. That was the case in Ido. The one of the things that distinguishes Ido from Esperanto is the derivation system, based on the "principle of reversibility". For Esperanto, the accusative, the adjectival concord, and the table of correlatives are its most distinguishing characteristics (in my opinion ); and Ido has made the accusative non-mandatory and completely discarded the latter two.

If an authority appointed by the UN is to change the Fundamento, they should not change [which I mean, alter] the most fundamental characteristics of Esperanto, its accusative, its adjectival concord, its endings that makes E-o grammar-coded, its affixes, its table of correlatives. It's OK if they, for example, remove Ĥ completely or change "teo" into "ĉao" because "ĉao" happens to be more international than "teo". These changes are only a cinch compared to a drastic change of grammar.

patrik:If an authority appointed by the UN is to change the Fundamento..

This comes near the heart of the matter: the location of authority. In my view, changing the Fundamento should not be an act of the UN at all. If it is ever to happen (and that is a big 'if') the consensus of the community and of the Akademio should be the crucial deciding factor.

A research study conducted by the UN may be helpful, however, in finding possible extensions or modifications to the language to make it more easily learnable for the greatest number. The matter of continuity with a century of Esperanto culture would need to be adequately addressed. I'm not sure that teo would be a problem for most learners, but hypothetically, it may be that a neologismo like ĉao would be helpful.

Convincing the Esperanto community would take some doing, and not just because of inertia; Esperanto has had a century of people getting most excited about their idea for 'improving' it. None of them spent a decade and more testing their idea as Zamenhof did before he ever came into print. Therefore, in the foreseable future it may be that gradual and natural evolution within the community is the only way forward.

patrik:The one of the things that distinguishes Ido from Esperanto is the derivation system, based on the "principle of reversibility". For Esperanto, the accusative, the adjectival concord, and the table of correlatives are its most distinguishing characteristics (in my opinion ); and Ido has made the accusative non-mandatory and completely discarded the latter two.

I would just like to add - while the wonderful table of correlatives (despite my dislike for the sounding of 'kiuj' ) has been dropped in Ido for the latin-derived variant, adjectives are still in harmony with the nouns to some extent, although they don't share pluralisation, but they do share the accusative when it is used and they are still distinguishable. Just to prevent any confusion that may cause.