gyrus:
The stuffy attitudes of some Esperantists makes me wonder why they bothered learning the language in the first place.

This question can easily be answered: They learnt the language in the first place because they like the language as it is now.
Do you think the language would still exist if it would have been changing every few years? And don't you think that it's a great thing that you can still read (and understand) what Zamenhof wrote a long time ago?
Or let me ask this way: What value has a language, if words that have been written a few decades ago are not more understandable for present speakers?

horsto:....Or let me ask this way: What value has a language, if words that have been written a few decades ago are no more understandable for present speakers?

Actually I have always envied the Icelanders for their ability to read ancient Norsk texts, (eddas, sagas, etc) with little or no further education. Even Shakespeare gives headaches to most English speakers and that's not even "old English".

I think the argument here for Christian's word-games is that none of us want to change Esperanto; as you say, it's great we all can read 100 year old texts without them even sounding dated to us, but at the same time it teaches us a lot about other languages (and our own) if we analyze and dissect Esperanto and pull it apart and push it back together in new, twisted ways. Doesn't mean we'll use it like that; but we'll gain a new appreciation for how it works and hopefully those exercises will teach us *how* to say things properly and why we say them in that way.

Ironchef and Gyrus: Mi intas legi vian fruajn mesaĝojn and I appreciate your encouragements of my creativity
(now who said "Doesn't mean we'll use it like that"? )

Persone, I just like mucking around with languages full stop. Great for learning random things. Today I learnt how to say 'and' between two different Japanese verbs (when trying to figure out if 'wakaranai' was actually a word).

Ironchef: but at the same time it teaches us a lot about other languages (and our own) if we analyze and dissect Esperanto and pull it apart and push it back together in new, twisted ways.

Sorry, I didn't want to mal-encourage you making your experiments. In fact I think I was also replying to something that Gyrus wrote in the Esperanto forum:

gyrus:
Honeste, mi pensas ke fojfoje l' fundamento estas, pardonu l' francan, komplete fek'.

I would like to quote Donald Broadribb on this (the Fundamento as something "written in stone"):

Donald Broadribb:This has led, of course, to the misunderstanding frequent among non-Esperantists that Esperanto is chained to a rigid tradition which cannot be modified. The phrase "netuŝebla Fundamento" ("untouchable Basis") is frequently quoted, out of context, in support of this claim. In reality, the Fundamento de Esperanto allows for considerable, even structural, changes in the language, and this possibility has been followed through with a procedure closely paralleling those taking place in the ethnic languages. 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.

So, the Fundamento is flexible enough to allow even structural changes in Esperanto. It is the basis of Esperanto, but it doesn't explicitly lists all the possible words, roots, or sentences of Esperanto. One can create sentences or forms that seem to violate the Fundamento in letter, but actually conforms fully to the Fundamento in "spirit".

According to the same article, Zamenhof insisted that changes in Esperanto must take place through natural processes. He renounced all his legal claims he might had to a copyright on Esperanto, in deep contrast to Schleyer and his Volapük. So, Zamenhof won't have any problems, if -ati/-anti, -iti/-inti, and -oti/-onti (or even -uti/-unti) becomes popular. Esperanto no longer belongs to Zamenhof, nor it belongs to the Akademio alone. It belongs to all Esperantists, the people "who care(d) to acquire fluency in it and put (Esperanto) to use". So, if Esperantists decide to use more of the new forms (for example, reforms like "riism", and new roots like "mojosa") and has sustained its use for years and years, the Akademio will have no other choice but to bow to the will of the Esperantistaro.

patrik:So, the Fundamento is flexible enough to allow even structural changes in Esperanto. It is the basis of Esperanto, but it doesn't explicitly lists all the possible words, roots, or sentences of Esperanto. One can create sentences or forms that seem to violate the Fundamento in letter, but actually conforms fully to the Fundamento in "spirit".

Wait - so basically I can "get away" (e.g. not breaking the rules too much but possibly confusing everyone in my wake) with saying 'mi antas lerni' or 'mi as lerni'? Or is that pushing it a bit too far structurally let alone syntactically? (although I don't think it would be too hard for the average EOist to figure out considering 'as' and 'ant' are fairly common).

ceigered:

patrik:So, the Fundamento is flexible enough to allow even structural changes in Esperanto. It is the basis of Esperanto, but it doesn't explicitly lists all the possible words, roots, or sentences of Esperanto. One can create sentences or forms that seem to violate the Fundamento in letter, but actually conforms fully to the Fundamento in "spirit".

Wait - so basically I can "get away" (e.g. not breaking the rules too much but possibly confusing everyone in my wake) with saying 'mi antas lerni' or 'mi as lerni'? Or is that pushing it a bit too far structurally let alone syntactically? (although I don't think it would be too hard for the average EOist to figure out considering 'as' and 'ant' are fairly common).

Grammatical endings can't stand alone as words. The suffixes, like -ant, can (with the endings, of course). ^^

patrik:Grammatical endings can't stand alone as words. The suffixes, like -ant, can (with the endings, of course). ^^

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! My dreams have been crushed!

Cheers patrik for that info though . I guess if grammatical endings could stand alone we'd have the word 'oo' for 'noun', 'ao' for 'adjective', 'uo' for 'imperative', 'aso' for 'present tense' and a whole lot of other things like that

ceigered:

patrik:Grammatical endings can't stand alone as words. The suffixes, like -ant, can (with the endings, of course). ^^

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! My dreams have been crushed!

Cheers patrik for that info though . I guess if grammatical endings could stand alone we'd have the word 'oo' for 'noun', 'ao' for 'adjective', 'uo' for 'imperative', 'aso' for 'present tense' and a whole lot of other things like that

"Mi antas lerni" still conforms to the rules of Esperanto (rare, though), but "Mi as lerni" does NOT. It's more akin to Glosa already.

Read this one: Analytic Esperanto The second example is an example of that.

Claude Piron, in his article "Esperanto: european or asiatic language?", in classifying Esperanto, he described three language planes:
1) The kernel or intrinsic (fundamental, essential) plane: which includes the basic type of grammar and derivation;
2) the intermediate plane: the syntax and customary word order;
3) the extrinsic plane: the actual forms of words and the system of sounds.

Changing the extrinsic plane (like by doing orthographical reforms) would do little damage, but to change the fundamental plane is to create a different language altogether, he said. It's basically changing the identity of the language, more fundamental than any "Fundamento". So, an Esperanto speaker can change his pronunciation of Esperanto words and it's still Esperanto. But if that Esperantist would create his sentences and words in total violation of Esperanto's grammar, he's creating an Esperantido (as did Couturat and Beaufront).