ceigered:

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.

Thanks for the clarification!

I think that the distinguishing characteristic of Esperanto, above all, is its free word building, and the endless possibilities it creates. Without that, it's no longer Esperanto.

patrik:Thanks for the clarification!

Don't mention it

Rogir:I think that the distinguishing characteristic of Esperanto, above all, is its free word building, and the endless possibilities it creates. Without that, it's no longer Esperanto.

Actually come to think of it, word building is quite important to Esperanto's character - compare it to Lingua Franca Nova, Interlingua, Volapük and other auxlangs and none of them have as heavier word building system as Esperanto, if any. And I have to honestly say that any language that wishes to 'beat' Esperanto would have to have an even better system which doesn't compromise the rest of the language, which is a VERY big ask (I assume Zamenhof was a very patient man to be able to create such a great system).

Rogir:I think that the distinguishing characteristic of Esperanto, above all, is its free word building, and the endless possibilities it creates. Without that, it's no longer Esperanto.

Indeed. Books like "La Bona Lingvo" and "En la Komenco estis la Vorto" attests to the importance of word building to Esperanto. This system, guided by the twin principles of "neceso kaj sufiĉo" ("necessity and sufficiency"), is very prolific and useful to us, that if this is to be changed, Esperantists would immediately desert such a initiative.

In my opinion, Esperanto's structure and features are internally consistent and coherent most of the time, and any changes to be made by that committee should be in harmony with the structure of Esperanto itself. Example, I support the inclusion of "-iĉ", "-unt-", and "-ut-", because these are derived from within Esperanto itself. I detest "ri" because it was created ex nihilo, and prefer "gi" instead because it looks "ĝi" and has the meaning of "ge-".

patrik:In my opinion, Esperanto's structure and features are internally consistent and coherent most of the time, and any changes to be made by that committee should be in harmony with the structure of Esperanto itself. Example, I support the inclusion of "-iĉ", "-unt-", and "-ut-", because these are derived from within Esperanto itself. I detest "ri" because it was created ex nihilo, and prefer "gi" instead because it looks "ĝi" and has the meaning of "ge-".

Hmm, I still hold this opinion. I'm in favor of changing a few details in the "Fundamento", but NEVER of recreating it from scratch.

patrik:
Hmm, I still hold this opinion. I'm in favor of changing a few details in the "Fundamento", but NEVER of recreating it from scratch.

In fact you should distinguish if it's an addition or a removal of fundamento's items. (of course re-creating it from scratch is out of the question because that just lead to another language)

A new usage can grow in popularity without a too huge debate, (and this possibility of change is stated in the fundamento).

But removing something means you forbid some actual usage. That's a totally different matter.

The criteria of internal consistency of a new usage is of course also crucial.

outs:In fact you should distinguish if it's an addition or a removal of fundamento's items. (of course re-creating it from scratch is out of the question because that just lead to another language)

A new usage can grow in popularity without a too huge debate, (and this possibility of change is stated in the fundamento).

But removing something means you forbid some actual usage. That's a totally different matter.

The criteria of internal consistency of a new usage is of course also crucial.

Yes, I totally agree.

patrik:Example, I support the inclusion of "-iĉ", "-unt-", and "-ut-", because these are derived from within Esperanto itself.

I support and encourage the use of "vir-", "kiu(j) -us", and "kiu(j)n oni -us" because these are not only derived from, but are already a part of standard Esperanto. Of your supported inclusions only the participles are remotely useful. Even in the Londona Biblio, which has been around since 1912 and is often used by dictionaries for examples of good Esperanto, "vir-" was the standard masculine prefix. That means that even 98 years ago, -iĉ was unnecessary!

I don't trust the UN which, for exemple, had let a democratic state attacked a sovereign state : Irak and not protect it. So i understand countries, like Iran, which want to protect themselves.

4 of the current 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council are occidental countries and have indoeuropean languages. China is alone with its asiatic language. So what would be this new esperanto ? What would you guess ?

1) What would be the future of the current Esperanto, the one that we have been using for more than century, if such a scenario takes place?

Who would know ?

2) What role would we (the current speakers of Esperanto, the "praparolontoj") assume in this scenario? Would we support this kind of undertaking, or go against it, like our forespeakers (!) did?

What i like, is to speak with other people, like esperanto allows me. If an other language can do that so easily, with the principe of egality of esperanto, i will learn it immediately.

3) If we were to support this undertaking, what reforms should we introduce to make Esperanto more acceptable or more palatable to the rest of the world?

To "mondlingvigize" the words. Words are too indoeuropean. About prononciation, some people can't or demand how to prononce "a, e, ĉ, sc, r, l..."
See, for exemple, the english forum and topics : "how to prononce "e" or "r", that's amazing !!
So words should come from all other the world and have an easy prononciation. I think allophones sould be allowed.
Some rules "the -n accusative, verbal sentence, pronouns..." should be optional because a lot of languages don't use them and make the language too difficult to them.

I think, we have now to choose between an easy language or a propedeutic language.

4) If we were to oppose this undertaking, should the movement go on in promoting the Esperanto of the Old "Fundamento", if the whole world would be speaking the Esperanto of the New "Fundamento" which is more acceptable to them? [This question is somewhat disturbing to me.]

The goal is to speak ourselves like esperanto does. If a language with valors of esperanto allows it, i think even Z himself would agree, because he only wanted to speak with a neutral language.