Rogir:The c makes just as much sense as ĉ. They are both combined consonants, but out of two consonants that are close to each other in the mouth. K and s are not. And just because English has ch as a regular sound does not mean it is not a combined consonant.

Some people consider [tS] (=cx) and [dZ] (=gx) to be single phonetic units, but no one considers [ts] to be one, so insofar as that's the case, the C makes slightly less sense than the CX. And its presence begs the question: why is [dz] written DZ?

I know that the C makes a kind of sense after CX and SX have been defined, so it's not as "random" as X-for-KS would be.

robinast:

Roberto12:Maybe we should stop clamouring for reform and stick with the Esperanto that's been established and known for over 100 years.

I can only agree!
Felicxan Kristnaskon

So, we stop talking about esperanto the best, the perfect language, which the whole planet will soon speak before 2012 , and ask the akademio de esperanto to go back home because the job has been done 100 years ago and they have nothing to say now !

No, no, no, dear friends, all languages speakers talk about their own, so why should we not ? Forbidden ? Even if it's right or wrong ! We must it. Else, it will really be a dead language.

Frankouche:
So, we stop talking about esperanto the best, the perfect language, ...
No, no, no, dear friends, all languages speakers talk about their own, so why should we not ? Forbidden ? Even if it's right or wrong ! We must it. Else, it will really be a dead language.

No, Esperanto is not a perfect language. Not a single language is nor can be. And we can and should talk about EO - it's interesting, it's educating and well, it's just fun.
What I could not agree with, was your thought that if some words in Esperanto are close enough to their equivalents in someone's native language, the present Esperanto rules of pronouncing should be abandoned or/and stems changed so that the national accent of the speaker is used instead. I may have mistaken - but this was how I understood you. Correct me please, if I distorted your point.
And, yes, I think that Fundamento should remain unchanged - which does not mean at all that EO would stop evolving. As much as I have understood, Fundamento has remained unchanged so far - but who has the guts to say that the EO itself has not evolved through all the time of it's existence? Would you say EO is dead? I suppose no. Would I? Neither...

robinast:What I could not agree with, was your thought that if some words in Esperanto are close enough to their equivalents in someone's native language, the present Esperanto rules of pronouncing should be abandoned or/and stems changed so that the national accent of the speaker is used instead.

I understand your meaning. For future words, it could be important :
- to keep the word very close to the original pronunciation (if it can)
- to change it to an other pronunciation (which one ?)
- to invent a new word

For instance, which i don't understand is how some french words have been translate in eo :
why aŝete--aĉeti, ŝ becomes ĉ and ŝanĵe--ŝanĝi, ŝ remains the same ?!
I often do a mistake with ŝanĝi which i often write ŝanĵi as in french.
Is "chance" written with "ŝanco", "ĉanco", "ŝanso", i wonder everytime i use it, because i remember that only one thing does not prononce and write as in french.
Why do i learn "garden" in english, "garten" in german, "jardin" (ĵardin) in french an "ĝardeno" in eo ? (maybe in a IE language that i don't know).

A lot of esperanto words comes from french words but they often do not pronunce and write the same way, and believe me, sometimes it's not so easy. I find it as a supplemental, useless difficulty.
So i would prefer that "aĉeti" would be for instance "abaĉadi" than a massacred word from my own language.

Frankouche:For future words, it could be important :
- to keep the word very close to the original pronunciation (if it can)
- to change it to an other pronunciation (which one ?)
- to invent a new word

I'm not sure I fully understand you, sorry!
As much as I do know, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish are pretty close to each other (I mean closer to each other than to English or, say, Estonian). Some word in EO can resemble a word with the same meaning in two or more languages from this quartet. What is the 'original pronunciation' then?
Changing the pronunciation of the existing words in EO would not be a good idea I think. Far better idea would be to practice a bit more and obtain the proper pronunciation, no matter does they resemble the words in speaker's native language or not.
What about inventing new words instead of the existing ones - again, I do not think it's a good idea. In my opinion, new words should be invented only for new concepts that can not be expressed well enough with the existing instruments in EO. The new word must accommodate to the rules of EO and it also may or may not resemble a word in some other language.

Frankouche:For instance, which i don't understand is how some french words have been translate in eo :
why aŝete--aĉeti, ŝ becomes ĉ and ŝanĵe--ŝanĝi, ŝ remains the same ?!

And if you did, would it be easier for you to accept this difference?
Even if the inventor of "aĉeti" was going to follow the example of French (but did not it properly) - what then? F.e my aunt intended to name her daughter after Mireille Mathieu and named her Mirei. My aunt was pretty upset when she got to know the original spelling after a while. But her daughter still is Mirei, not Mireille...

Frankouche:A lot of esperanto words comes from french words but they often do not pronunce and write the same way, and believe me, sometimes it's not so easy. I find it as a supplemental, useless difficulty.

I understand you and believe as well. But it also means that quite a lot of words are easier for you to remember than for those who do not speak French. Don't these contradicting effects neutralize each other? OK, lets change some word in EO so that it would be easier for you to memorize and pronounce. Now, don't you think that the word can be hardier to remember for native Spaniards or Italians f.e? And what would this change mean for those, who already have memorized the word as it sounds in EO and used to it as it is? Have you thought about this as well?

Frankouche:So i would prefer that "aĉeti" would be for instance "abaĉadi" than a massacred word from my own language.

Don't you think that EO is full of the 'massacred' words from different languages?

(will continue in the next message)

... In conclusion, my opinion is that the existing words in EO should remain as they are, no matter, how easy or difficult they are for certain persons - because changes will definitely cause more trouble than they solve problems.
In inventing new words when necessary the maybe-confusing similarities á la "aŝete---aĉeti" should perhaps avoided indeed, though I would not start to fight for it. I'd probably take similarities for a help rather than for a trouble. I've nearly always found that similarities do help rather than disturb. I said nearly because sometimes similarities are confusing for me as well: f.e I learn EO and Spanish at the same time. And here I sometimes mess the similar words up indeed - I'm not always sure which of the two similar words belong to which language.

Frankouche:So i would prefer that "aĉeti" would be for instance "abaĉadi" than a massacred word from my own language.

"abaĉadi" - Frankouche, that verb is simply awesome. I propose we use it to help whenever we forget how to properly say a very similar verb in EO to that of a native language.

E.g.
A- "Morgaŭ mi... aaaa.... o diable! Mi forgesis la ĝustan vorton.... Morgaŭ mi abaĉados kun miaj gepatroj al la stacidomo"
B- "Vi faros kio morgaŭ?!"
A- "Ah! Jes! Iri! Iri estas la verbo kiun mi volis! Morgaŭ mi iros kun miaj gepatroj al la stacidom'."
B- "Ooooooo, iri... Sed... heeeen?! Kia vorto estas "abaĉadi"?!! Ne estas Esperanta!"

Roberto12:Hmm, actually, that looks like Volapük! Maybe we should stop clamouring for reform and stick with the Esperanto that's been established and known for over 100 years.

Feliĉan Kristnaskon

Or we could stick with the even older Volapük!
Some non-invasive and small simplifications wouldn't hurt IMHO, non-invasive meaning not going to genuinely offend anyone, and if it aids international communication.

Concerning scii, I can only see one option for "sc-" - turn it to sk. Making scii 'sii' or 'stii' looks like it's bound to cause problems, where as c and k are historically the same thing and therefore it'd be very hard for Zam to have any sc-/sk- pairs (e.g. scenaro vs. skenaro, there is no skenaro). Scii however runs into the problem of turning into skii unfortunately (DAMN SKIS!), so in retrospect there's no simple solution for the original gripe

Feliĉan kristnaskon kaj bonan novjaron ankaŭ al vi!

Frankouche:So, we stop talking about esperanto the best, the perfect language, which the whole planet will soon speak before 2012 , and ask the akademio de esperanto to go back home because the job has been done 100 years ago and they have nothing to say now !

No, no, no, dear friends, all languages speakers talk about their own, so why should we not ? Forbidden ? Even if it's right or wrong ! We must it. Else, it will really be a dead language.

If I'd been one of Zamenhof's friends/collaborators in the 19th century, I would've advised him to make the accusative ending and adjectival agreement optional, to make the people-words gender neutral, to shrink the phonology a bit, plus a few other random suggestions. As you can see, I don't consider Esperanto to be perfect, and in my first year as an Esperantist I had a reformist/critical mentality. But I've come to realise that the language is fixed, that it's too late to change it in a big way. If we opened the door to reform, everyone, most painfully the veterans, would have a load of new learning to do, masses of text and other material would become wrong, and there'd be a god-almighty row among the reformers as to what to do!

So yes, be critical, but don't actually try to change anything major. It's a hopeless dead end.

robinast:Some word in EO can resemble a word with the same meaning in two or more languages from this quartet. What is the 'original pronunciation' then?

Right, and i don't know how it could be resolved.
Ex : mesaĝo, mesaĵ in french and mesaĝ in english.

robinast:Don't you think that EO is full of the 'massacred' words from different languages?

From some french words, certainly. About other languages, i don't know.
I don't understand all the logic of the transcription of the prononciation of the eo words.

So yes, be critical, but don't actually try to change anything major. It's a hopeless dead end.

I agree.