This is a weird suggestion, but it's probably come up before. Forgive me if this is something that's already been discussed.

Given the fact that, in Esperanto, we're encouraged to form our own words from the existing radikoj, is there any reason why we can't use the -nta and -ta participle forms directly in a verb? For example, instead of saying "mi estis vidinta", one could just say "mi vidintis". That way, we could do away with the auxiliary verb for the sake of brevity, without breaking anything about the way the language already works.

I use those forms myself. Unfortunately though, not all appreciates it like I do.

Anyway, Bertilo said something about those forms, and I find his advice helpful.
Jen: Mallongigitaj kunmetitaj verboj (http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/participoj/ku...)

Pharoah:Given the fact that, in Esperanto, we're encouraged to form our own words from the existing radikoj, is there any reason why we can't use the -nta and -ta participle forms directly in a verb?

I'm not sure I grant the premiss. We are certainly permitted to create new forms within the rules, but whether it is always helpful is another matter. In speaking, ease of understanding is likely to be more important than being creative in this way. More latitude may be permissible in writing, particularly poetry, if you need to find just the right word and this is the only way.

More latitude may be permissible in writing, particularly poetry, if you need to find just the right word and this is the only way.

That's more the kind of thing I was thinking of. But, I'd still like it to be understood in my writing nonetheless .

Pharaoh, a helpful hint. You may pick this up from another cited conversation but in case you don't read all the way through the old discussions:

Esperanto verbs are not translations of English verbs. I know this sounds like a dumb thing to say. What I mean is, we use many complicated verb tenses in English. We differentiate clearly between "I went" and "I had gone"

In Esperanto, as you have doubtlessly noticed, it is possible to make these fine distinctions, and even to make even finer distinctions.

BUT we usually don't. Elegance is prized. Simpler verb forms are preferred over more complex ones. So "mi iris" would usually be used not only for "I went" but also "I had gone" and "I was going" and "I have gone".

Sure, you could say "Mi estis irinta" or "Mi estis iranta" or "Mi estas irinta". Or you could say 'Mi irintis", "Mi irantis", and "Mi irintas"

But we don't. Because we hardly ever use those forms, estas -inta, anyway, because in those cases, unless we have an excellent reason to want to be extremely clear, we say simply "Mi iris". So it is hardly worth coming up with abbreviated forms of grammatical forms that we use extremely seldom.

Remember this - Esperanto belongs to its speakers. Esperanto speakers are an innovative lot who frequently work "within the rules" of Esperanto to come up with innovations that make their lives easier. The -intis type forms have not caught on in 130 years of Esperanto. To me, this shows that the fluent speakers of the language (who are the ones who drive trends, not beginners) haven't seen the need for a change of this nature.

I mean this in the very nicest possible way, but my advice to you is to keep learning, and when you have learned Esperanto really well, re-evaluate your viewpoint. There are a grammatical shortcuts to Esperanto that look very attractive to beginners. Once you get experienced, I think you will find that these shortcuts aren't attractive anymore; they will seem irrelevant and unnecessary to you. Perhaps some others who are "recent beginners" have some comments here.

My attempted (attempted coz I don't adhere to it very well) philosophy is to try and make my EO as simple as possible.

Even if there are many different ways to build words in EO, it's often easier to understand analytical, simple sentences than very precise, long words.

The trap with precision is that it isn't always the easiest thing to understand. If I commenced the usage of extremely complex yet precise vocabulary for the purpose of making my opinions and the semantics of my sentence completely comprehensible (like that ), you'll just get bogged down.

Like with English technical writing you're trying to find a healthy mean between simplicity and precision.

Mi vidantas ĝin might be OK grammatically but some will go 'what the??' and not understand at all, and it's not worth the misunderstanding if you can communicate the same thing with 'Mi vidas ĝin' or 'Mi nuntempe vidas ĝin'

Sorry I kind of blanked out for a bit of that message but basically I'd advise using precise, analytical structure than creating single mega words which may be precise but require the listener to think about the meaning more than the time he/she is given.

(btw analytical is the opposite of agglutanitive eo-style word building. It's where words are isolated and tend to keep a familiar form e.g. like English or Chinese - kind of that pidgin style grammar).

(and if what I said just sounds confusing or whatnot just read what Erinja said - I'm too tired to write something helpful atm )

edit: (finally (I love brackets) I should add that my advice comes from a conlanger more so than an esperantist so I might spurt advice that's a bit incorrect - people can feel free to correct my advice if they wish)

I mean this in the very nicest possible way, but my advice to you is to keep learning, and when you have learned Esperanto really well, re-evaluate your viewpoint. There are a grammatical shortcuts to Esperanto that look very attractive to beginners. Once you get experienced, I think you will find that these shortcuts aren't attractive anymore; they will seem irrelevant and unnecessary to you. Perhaps some others who are "recent beginners" have some comments here.

I think I count as a recent beginner, so I'll weigh in. One of the things that I find most attractive about Esperanto is the fact that one does not need to use some of the more complicated verb forms to be correct, elegant, and well understood. I see the reason for wanting to have these forms available, but for me they interrupt the sound and flow of the language. But then I am often inclined to like a more archaic style.

So, that was my $0.02

Also, anyone who ever says 'devintus' is immediately singled out as an English speaker.

I wouldn't say that devintus singles someone out as an English speaker. I think it's fairly international. It's true thought that -intus is the only "nested form" that has gained widespread use.

I see it not uncommonly. "Se mi sciintus", "se li vidintus", etc.

ceigered:
Like with English technical writing you're trying to find a healthy mean between simplicity and precision.

In school, students are taught to use active voice, but in technical or scientific papers, passive voice tends to be used more often. Is this the case for scientific communication in Esperanto?