Cheers all (again),

@ Erinja: I'm aware that estas means it is/there is, but they are then again the same thing - they both describe the existence of an undefined (or assumed) thing ("there is" = defines the thing, "it is" = describes the thing)

@ Erinja and Dimichxp:
While I have to say that "adjectives can't be used without nouns" seems like a form of over-correctness and somewhat disregarding the properties of adjectives vs, adverbs and their associated functions, I really don't know what to think about in terms of Esperanto in practical communication (where undoubtedly not everyone wants to have a linguistics conversation regarding the differences between word classes and their functions, and people speak just what they've learnt from others ).

So at the moment I have no idea who to listen to

ceigered:I really don't know what to think about in terms of Esperanto in practical communication .. at the moment I have no idea who to listen to

So far as practical communication goes, Erinja is one of the most experienced Esperantists on the forum. I promise you that you will not go wrong by listening to her.

As for the distinction between 'There is' and 'It is', I'll write to you about that separately.

Miland:

ceigered:I really don't know what to think about in terms of Esperanto in practical communication .. at the moment I have no idea who to listen to

So far as practical comunication goes, Erinja is one of the most experienced Esperantists on the forum. I promise you that you will not go wrong by listening to her.

As for the distinction between 'There is' and 'It is', I'll write to you about that separately.

Ok, I'll go with Erinja's advice... For now -shifty eyes-

And don't worry about the there is/it is distinction, I understand what's being said - unless you want to talk about it anyway, in which I've got no problem

dimichxp:
Nope, if you want to describe implied noun, you should use -a (which is logical). "Estas malvarme" doesn't imply "vetero" as subject, it just describes the state of everything (anything undefined). Hey, that's just like russian!
Example:

The first case with implied noun (or pronoun) in the second sentence:
Mi ŝatas la veteron. Estas agrabla/varma.
I like the weather. It [the weather] is pleasing/warm.

Now the example with no implied subject (the second sentence is subjectless):
Mi ŝatas la veteron. Estas agrable/varme.
I like the weather. It is pleasing/warm [here].

The ideas of both examples are pretty same, but first depends on context (vetero), the second may be used everywhere.

You are wrong. In Esperanto you can never use -a if there is no subject in the sentence. Never.
In the first case you mention, the right sentence would be:

Mi ŝatas la veteron. Ĝi estas varma.

Many people think that in Esperanto you are allowed to just leave the subject away, but that is not true. Only in cases where other languages use a dummy subject, such as 'it' in 'it is raining', you should not use a subject in Esperanto.

Going back to language games: while speaking English (as most of you do every day... duh) change "There is" by "It is" and vice versa, just to see the reaction faces you get.

[offtopic mode on] And another one that I really love : making the gesture of quotation marks with your fingers when you say a random word in a conversation. It just freaks people out. =) [offtopic mode off]

Rogir:You are wrong. In Esperanto you can never use -a if there is no subject in the sentence. Never.

Citation needed (c). Why do you think so? Did you read that in fundamento? Or is it true because you said "never" two times? Please try to explain me why it is true. I'm ready to learn.

From PMEG:

Oni uzas E-vorton anstataŭ A-vorto ankaŭ kiam ne ekzistas subjekto.

An adverb is used instead of an adjective if there is no subject.

Besides, such use never appears in official papers and certainly not in the Fundamento.

If in Esperanto you would be allowed to leave the subject away, how would a listener know which subject you left away? Since verb forms are not conjugated for person or number, this could lead to great confusion.

Now since there is no 'implied subject' (because if there was, it would have to be written out), there is nothing for an adjective to refer to. Because, at least in Esperanto, adjectives refer to nouns, and adverbs refer to adjectives, verbs of phrases.

Rogir:From PMEG:

Oni uzas E-vorton anstataŭ A-vorto ankaŭ kiam ne ekzistas subjekto.

An adverb is used instead of an adjective if there is no subject.

There is subject, but it is implied. It's not forbidden.
By the way, on the exact page there is phrase "Se la subjekto estas subkomprenata O-vorto aŭ O-vorteca vorto, oni kompreneble uzu A-vortan formon" and example with sub-phrase and jussive mood.

Besides, such use never appears in official papers and certainly not in the Fundamento.
If in Esperanto you would be allowed to leave the subject away, how would a listener know which subject you left away? Since verb forms are not conjugated for person or number, this could lead to great confusion.

Could lead, but will not definitely lead. Look, that's matter of style. Esperanto is flexible enough and allows to drop anything that is obvious from context or implied (task to the reader: count how many such reductions you use in everyday language practice). Usually no one needs to drop the subject (because of confusion), but no one should say it's not allowed. The simplest example is jussive mood - vi (subject) is often implied because it's understandable from context.

Saying "Mi ŝatas la veteron. Estas varma" is not error, it only may be considered: to be
- bad style in learning books;
- uncommon but correct construction in common language practice, i really doubt there is a person who will understand it incorrectly;
- welcomed thing in poetry or literature.

Again, i'm surely against of such constructions in common language practice, i just used it to show some... hm... inaccuracy in Erinja's arguments.

Rogir:If in Esperanto you would be allowed to leave the subject away, how would a listener know which subject you left away? Since verb forms are not conjugated for person or number, this could lead to great confusion

Not really - "Mi ludas kun leonoj. Estas dangxere" and "Mi sxatas leono. Estas dangxera" are just as ambiguous, and from what I've read before, the first example is 'correct' Esperanto, despite having the perceived absence of a subject like the second 'incorrect' sentence.

Depends what kind of phrases we're talking about too - "amas vin" means nothing (Kiu amas?), but a dude walking in a park saying "Mmm, estas bela!" would be getting his idea across fine (granted, he could just say "Mmm, bela!" but for some strange reason he didn't )

In that case I will start omitting subjects in English too where are not necessary. Will still be understandable, right?