dimichxp:the root of misunderstanding is that ebl expresses passive ability, not active (for example look at manĝebla - povanta esti montrata)

I don't think the passive aspect of "ebl" really comes into it, that's more for when it acts as a suffix in some verb root, not when it's used as a word in its own right.

Miland:It is meaningful to speak of someone having a chance, even though a chance is not a tangible object.

Of course, but "mi havos eblon" is perfectly valid for that idea. We don't need to introduce the notion of quality merely because it is possible (at a stretch) to rationalise it that way. "Havi la econ esti ebla" or simply "esti ebla" has by far the greater explanatory power for "havi eblecon". Being possible yourself is not the same thing as having something be possible for you (having a chance). Conflating these two completely distinct ideas is illogical, especially when one of them (the former) has the greater sense and consistency with the way this suffix is used generally.

Miland:I'm saying that correctness in a language ultimately depends on usage.

I'm not arguing for correctness, since that will always be a subjective affair. My comments are limited only to what is logical and makes sense within the established rules and norms of Esperanto itself, not idomatic usage derived from other languages. Like you, I do not beleive the abundance of "ebleco" represents a significant problem. But I think it's wrong to conclude from this that the distinction doesn't matter.

niko-tina:
As for your doubt, horsto, this possible event A that you mention, havas eblecon (it has the possibility of coming existent and manifesting itself), but the eblo is in fact the event itself. It estas eblo (it is a possibility among a spectrum of other events that may also occur, but as they don't have the same possibility of coming true, they don't have the same eblecon).
I hope I cleared your doubts.

Thanks for answering, perhaps you are right, but then the sentence
mi havas eblon is wrong, you don't have the event.

dimichxp:There is no sense to make "havi eblecon" idiomatic.

The meaning of mi havas eblecon in practice is indeed 'I have a chance'. The idiom has already become an established part of the language by usage - it is not being introduced or made at the moment.

nik-tina:..it's not about "having the chance of DOING", it actually means "having the chance of BEING".

Mi havas eblecon in actual use does refer to the chance of something being possible to do or to happen, not just be.

tommjames:I think it's wrong to conclude from this that the distinction (between eblo and ebleco doesn't matter.

You are welcome to your opinion. I think that eblo and ebleco are valid alternatives. The first is an older usage, the second more modern. I prefer the second myself as closer to the notion of the probability of an event, and so more precise. I'm not going to stop anyone using the first if they prefer, but I'm not going to worry about it.

tommjames:I don't think the passive aspect of "ebl" really comes into it, that's more for when it acts as a suffix in some verb root, not when it's used as a word in its own right.

Strange thinking, where does fundamento says that word may change it's sense whenever it suffix or not?

horsto:
Thanks for answering, perhaps you are right, but then the sentence
mi havas eblon is wrong, you don't have the event.

It's not wrong.
Guys, just try to expand the word by definition, it's not that hard:
"mi havas eblon fari tion" = "mi havas eblon por fari tion", "mi havas ion, kio estas ebla, por fari tion" = "mi havas ion, kio povas okazi por fari tion" ~= "I have an opportunity to do it".

Miland:The meaning of mi havas eblecon in practice is indeed 'I have a chance'. The idiom has already become an established part of the language by usage - it is not being introduced or made at the moment.

It's not an idiom, it's just a common mistake. When people are going to say one thing, but are saying another, thinking it's correct, it's mistake.

Miland:I think that eblo and ebleco are valid alternatives. The first is an older usage, the second more modern. I prefer the second myself as closer to the notion of the probability of an event, and so more precise. I'm not going to stop anyone using the first if they prefer, but I'm not going to worry about it.

I'm sorry, but you are destroying the language. Please don't be so proud of it at least.

dimichxp:

tommjames:I don't think the passive aspect of "ebl" really comes into it, that's more for when it acts as a suffix in some verb root, not when it's used as a word in its own right.

Strange thinking, where does fundamento says that word may change it's sense whenever it suffix or not?

I doubt if such a thing exists in the fundamento, but I don't think it matters. You can see from the meaning of the words when "ebl" is used as an ordinary root that there's no passivity going on.

eblo = something that is possible, a possibility
ebla = possible to be/happen
ebleco = quality of being possible

Can you can show me how ideas such as "possible to be" involve passive action? If so I'm all ears

dimichxp:

Miland:The meaning of mi havas eblecon in practice is indeed 'I have a chance'. The idiom has already become an established part of the language by usage - it is not being introduced or made at the moment.

It's not an idiom, it's just a common mistake. When people are going to say one thing, but are saying another, thinking it's correct, it's mistake.

Despite being the "younger" Esperantist here, I'd have to agree - this is like me going "mi korektas" instead of "mi pravas", or "mi kontrolas la auxton" instead of "mi direktas la auxton". Or in more extreme cases, "Sxi havas belajxo" instead of "Sxi estas bela".

Miland:I think that eblo and ebleco are valid alternatives. The first is an older usage, the second more modern. I prefer the second myself as closer to the notion of the probability of an event, and so more precise. I'm not going to stop anyone using the first if they prefer, but I'm not going to worry about it.

I'm sorry, but you are destroying the language. Please don't be so proud of it at least.

[/quote]Dammit Miland! I've told you, it's MY job to destroy, not YOURS! (but I wouldn't worry too much Dimichxp, this is just a friendly debate )

Surely rapida is to ebla as rapideco is to ebleco? Just as it doesn't make sense to interpret havi rapidecon as anything other than being "rapida", it wouldn't make sense to interpret havi eblecon as anything other than to be "ebla".

tommjames:eblo = something that is possible, a possibility
ebla = possible to be/happen
ebleco = quality of being possible
Can you can show me how ideas such as "possible to be" involve passive action? If so I'm all ears

It's simple:
ebla (as passive) = povanta esti farata
*ebla* (as active, not our case!) = *povanta esti faranta*.
I don't know how to express it in english. Why the hell we are discussing it in non-esperanto forum?

nshepperd:Surely rapida is to ebla as rapideco is to ebleco? Just as it doesn't make sense to interpret havi rapidecon as anything other than being "rapida", it wouldn't make sense to interpret havi eblecon as anything other than to be "ebla".

It doesn't make sense to identify "havi umecon" with "esti uma", because the whole point of such construction is to specify "how much" you do have the quality, to compare your quality with some mesure. For example: Mi havas rapidecon 10 km/h = Mi estas tiel rapida kiel 10 km/h. If it's not specified how much you are rapid, then Mi havas rapidecon=Mi estas iom rapida (no one knows how much iom is).
If you are going to talk about some absolute qualities, which one can only have or have not, then havi umecon=esti uma. I think it's obvious.

dimichxp:

tommjames:eblo = something that is possible, a possibility
ebla = possible to be/happen
ebleco = quality of being possible
Can you can show me how ideas such as "possible to be" involve passive action? If so I'm all ears

It's simple:
ebla (as passive) = povanta esti farata
*ebla* (as active, not our case!) = *povanta esti faranta*.
I don't know how to express it in english. Why the hell we are discussing it in non-esperanto forum?

My point is not that something like "ebla" cannot show a possibility related to passive action. It's that it doesn't have to, and indeed this will rarely be the intended meaning. If rain is "ebla" there's nothing happening to the rain passively. If I "eble" do something there's no passive action happening to me. Not necessarily anyway. So I don't see this as having any bearing on what we were previously discussing.