niko-tina:You are using a wrong example. [...] if you eble do something, it's not you the one assuming the passive role, it's the something.

You're probably right there. In any case, I think it's clear that words formed of "ebl" as a root don't necessarily indicate any passivity, as they do when it's used as a suffix. So I wouldn't argue against ebleco for eblo on that basis.

tommjames: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.

The point is that is: "ebla" is a passive characteristic, it shows (potential) possibility of action being done on subject, it never shows that subject has (potential) possibility doing action (rain is possible, RAIN is possible, not that rain can do something, if it could than i'd call that characteristic active.). When i said about the passiveness in the first time, i had an idea that someone may misunderstand it and because of that have misunderstanding of what "havi eblecon" means (if "ebla" were active characteristic, then "mi havas eblecon" would have general sence "i (possibly) can").

dimichxp:it never shows that subject has (potential) possibility doing action

Even if that were true (it isn't) I don't see the relevance. Something possible is not passive. It just is. This has no bearing on the ebleco issue.

niko-tina:

ceigered:Despite being the "youngest " 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 belajxon" instead of "Sxi estas bela".

I know you are a native English speaker, but please don't change me the rules. It was hard enough already to remember the comparatives (-r) and the superlatives (-st). I guess you really are a language destroyer after all hehehe

As for the eblo/ebleco problem, here you are some authority argumentation, that doesn't prove anything, but clarifies one of the viewpoints:

Reta Vortaro pri "ebl"

Hahaha! I, the language destroyer!
Just to cause more confusion, the phrase "the ...-er ..." (e.g. "the younger esperantist") is proper English, it basically means that I am the "younger" person out of those being refered to (e.g. the people in this discussion). "the youngest" would however refer to another person altogether (maybe the youngest or newest esperantist in the entire world) if I am not the youngest/komencanta person there. So it's like short-hand for "I am the youngest out of the people here".

And thanks for the link

white knight:The word "Möglichkeitseigenschaft" does not make sense in German.

Aw, but it looks so cool!

tommjames:

dimichxp:it never shows that subject has (potential) possibility doing action

Even if that were true (it isn't) I don't see the relevance. Something possible is not passive. It just is. This has no bearing on the ebleco issue.

It's true (if not, give a real example please, or some theory). The relevance here is very simple (i'm explaining in the third time: if it were not true (it is) then 'havi eblecon' in the sense someone trying to defend would be valid. i was trying to show that it is not valid in terms of passiveness. finfine kompreneble?).

dimichxp:i was trying to show that it is not valid in terms of passiveness

I'm saying it is irrelevant whether or not it is "valid in terms of passiveness", because there is no reason an ebl word has to have anything to do with the concept of passivity, as it does when used as a suffix. This issue has no bearing at all on whether or not ebleco can or should be used in place of eblo. If you wish to continue clinging to this notion then fine, that's your affair. But I think I've said all that needs to be said on the matter, so I'll leave it at that.

tommjames:I'm saying it is irrelevant whether or not it is "valid in terms of passiveness", because there is no reason an ebl word has to have anything to do with the concept of passivity, as it does when used as a suffix. This issue has no bearing at all on whether or not ebleco can or should be used in place of eblo. If you wish to continue clinging to this notion then fine, that's your affair. But I think I've said all that needs to be said on the matter, so I'll leave it at that.

Okay, it's really irrelevant, just a working and correct explanation. If you have real objections about it you are welcome.

dimichxp:It's not an idiom, it's just a common mistake..you are destroying the language. Please don't be so proud of it

Havi eblecon is a well-established idiom, and I am not destroying the language. You will not turn into a bad Esperantist by listening to me. Be more careful about making such statements to people who may have been involved with the language a little longer than yourself, and possibly be more qualified in an objective sense.

Miland:
Havi eblecon is a well-established idiom, and I am not destroying the language. You will not turn into a bad Esperantist by listening to me. Be more careful about making such statements to people who may have been involved with the language a little longer than yourself, and possibly be more qualified in an objective sense.

It's not an idiom, it's well-established mistake. I'm sorry if for many years of using esperanto you can't see the difference. If there are no better arguments than kinda greater experience, i see no reason to continue the "discussion". Have a nice day.

dimichxp:It's not an idiom, it's well-established mistake..If there are no better arguments than kinda greater experience, i see no reason to continue the "discussion".

It is an idiom, and no mistake. It is you for whom one needs to be sorry, as you are not capable of learning from anyone else's experience. Therefore, you will have to learn a few things yourself the hard way. I now leave you to it.