Rogir:I consider that citation an argument against leaving the subject away, at least in written texts.

Is it so hard to admit your own mistake? I have proved my point in a thousand ways, what else do you need?

dimichxp:

Rogir:I consider that citation an argument against leaving the subject away, at least in written texts.

Is it so hard to admit your own mistake? I have proved my point in a thousand ways, what else do you need?

I don't see that Rogir made a mistake. I think you misunderstood the meaning of what PMEG was saying.

I understand from what is written in the PMEG that some people, when speaking very colloquially, will end up leaving out the subject in a very few cases. It's not recommended colloquial style by any means; it's only an acknowledgment of what can happen sometimes. Colloquial Esperanto is normally entirely grammatically correct, simply informal. Leaving off subjects is not grammatically correct, period.

In English it is forbidden to drop the subject, and in Esperanto, it is also forbidden. But in rapid and informal speech, sometimes grammatical rules get broken for the sake of speed, in both English and Esperanto. In these cases, occasionally a subject might get dropped. That is not to say that it's ok to do it, or even that it's correct colloquial style to do it! It is not.

In any case, even in rapid, colloquial speech, Esperanto is very strict about when the subject may possibly get dropped. So particularly in a forum with a lot of beginners present, I would not recommend dropping the subject under any circumstances. When you become fluent, fluent enough to be having, for example, a rapid, shouted conversation with someone outside a car window at a traffic light, then you will probably naturally lose a few subjects.

erinja:

dimichxp:

Rogir:I consider that citation an argument against leaving the subject away, at least in written texts.

Is it so hard to admit your own mistake? I have proved my point in a thousand ways, what else do you need?

I don't see that Rogir made a mistake. I think you misunderstood the meaning of what PMEG was saying.

You wish.

erinja:
Leaving off subjects is not grammatically correct, period.

It's correct, damnit. There is no strict rule on it.

In English it is forbidden to drop the subject, and in Esperanto, it is also forbidden.

It's not forbidden in Esperanto. In common cases such as answering to a ĉu-question or imperative mood it's used everywhere. Not sometimes. It's hard to see the other cases of dropping a subject because it's just impractical - it makes semantic confusion while being grammatically correct. But if idea is so simple there is no confusion and it's possible to drop subject. It's correct (grammatically), just style-biased. It's widely used in written form when expressing dialogs. Did you read any book in Esperanto?
Anyway, again, i'm not advocating dropping a subject. Let's say it all again.

1. My first (correct) point was: "If one would say 'Estas uma.' it can be correctly interpreted as qualifying implied (context-dependend) subject as being 'uma"
2. You said (surely wrong) statement: "Even if there is a noun that is IMPLIED but not stated, you still can't use the -a ending to describe it." and gave example "Estas malvarme." thinking that this sentence has implied subject. It really does not, it's subjectless construction.
3. I gave two examples with implied subject and subjectless construction.
4. Rogir said that i can never imply subject. He even said never two times.
5. I tried (seems to be in vain) to show that's not true, it's correct to imply the subject. Grammatically correct, not stylish.
6. ktp
Now please show me correct statement that's not mine, and incorrect statement that's mine.

erinja:
When you become fluent, fluent enough to be having,

When people start thinki... Ah, forget it.

In this case, I think Dimicĥp wins on the basis of "who cares?" There seems to be no rule saying Dimicĥp is wrong, only ones that seem to be advising against the usage, especially in situations where it's just plain ambiguous. From my interpretation of the rules, the kind of subject that can really be omitted is only ĝi/tio/tiu when everything is known by context. Basically the rules permit it, everything else is left to interpretation. Stereotypical Germanic speakers are going to get stroppy if you leave out pronouns, because we tend to avoid that ourselves. A stereotypical Russian speaker might get stroppy if you leave out anything other than "ĝi" because apart from "it" they use all of their pronouns all the time. Some Romance speakers and some Slavic speakers may be divided on the issue, as might be some Semitic speakers. A Japanese speaker may have no problems dropping out whole subjects, but might see it as being an influence on Esperanto from their native language. A dude from Africa speaking, say, Swahili probably won't give a rats buttocks about it all considering EO would look strange enough either way.
To me, imposing that the subject must always be there otherwise the sentence takes an adverb looks as if some English speaker has overthought the rules and then made it a standard for generations to come. And Zamenhoff wouldna of cared if it was still understandable.

Estas forlasita.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(I was going to post a proper response here, but in the process I thought of something funny )

:In English it is forbidden to drop the subject, and in Esperanto, it is also forbidden.

I'm sorry, but where do you see this prohibition? In PMEG Bertilo starts with this sentence:

PMEG:
Oni normale ne forlasas la subjekton de ĉefverbo, se la ĉefverbo mem ĉeestas en la frazo.

And then Bertilo lists a lot of exceptions, for example in every day use of the language and even in proverbs.
And even if it would be forbidden in PMEG, I think there exists no universal valid grammar of Esperanto, only the rules en la Fundamento. PMEG only describes how Bertilo interprets the correct usage of Esperanto.
In Esperanto it is more important than any rule in any grammar that the spoken words are understandable. And who wouldn't understand this (el PMEG):
— Kion li faris? — Iris al la urbo!
— Ĉu ŝi estas hejme? — Eliris, sed baldaŭ revenos.

dimichxp:
It's correct, damnit. There is no strict rule on it.

Then you can go on happily speaking dimichxpsperanto and not Esperanto.

1. My first (correct) point was: "If one would say 'Estas uma.' it can be correctly interpreted as qualifying implied (context-dependend) subject as being 'uma"

This is actually the most wrong thing you've said.

If I walk up to a fire engine, and I say "Estas uma!", I'm not using correct Esperanto. This is different from the situations listed in PMEG. Even though we all understand that I'm talking about the fire engine, it hasn't even been mentioned before. The situations listed in PMEG are leaving off the subject in cases when stating the subject would be repeating something that was just said one second ago. You're taking an extremely limited set of circumstances in PMEG and extending it to a wide range of situations that it wasn't meant to apply to.

I'm well-read in Esperanto. I translated most of this website into English, and worked on this site before it went live in 2002. I was a tutor on this website for the greater part of this website's existence, and I am a member of the core governing team of this website. I use Esperanto every single day in personal conversations with friends, administration work for this website (discussions with the team, answering user questions, technical troubleshooting, etc), and yes, reading books and magazines. I have experienced the full range of human emotions in spoken Esperanto, up to and including intense, shouted arguments.

Please don't use profanity and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

You are over-applying the rule. You can't just go around saying "Estas bona! Estas bela! Estas uma!", even in colloquial Esperanto.

Yes, I am being conservative about use of the subject. But you are being too liberal with it, and allowing it to be used even in situations when colloquial Esperanto doesn't permit it. You have to understand that I spend a lot of time dealing with learners and beginners. If you tell someone learning a language, "It's ok to do XYZ", they will believe you, and they will do it. It doesn't do any good to tell a beginner, "You can do XYZ in the following extremely complicated circumstances". Nuances are hard for someone to understand when they don't have a good grasp of the basics. If we write in this forum that it's ok to leave out the subject when the subject is clear from context, we're leaving out a lot of information. And the fact that you can't distinguish between saying "Estas uma" and the situations and proverbs marked in the PMEG shows that your Esperanto level hasn't yet reached a point where you can see the difference between these situations.

So please, use a subject. You will come off speaking normal Esperanto, rather than sounding like someone who is ignorant and is speaking strange because he doesn't know any better. Later on, as you gain fluency, you'll learn the differences between these situations.

erinja:

1. My first (correct) point was: "If one would say 'Estas uma.' it can be correctly interpreted as qualifying implied (context-dependend) subject as being 'uma"

If I walk up to a fire engine, and I say "Estas uma!", I'm not using correct Esperanto.

Would I be correct in assuming that one would generally drop the subject and verb in colloquial Esperanto? Would saying "Uma!" or "Tiel ruĝa!" when seeing said fire truck be correct?

horsto:In Esperanto it is more important than any rule in any grammar that the spoken words are understandable. And who wouldn't understand this (el PMEG):
— Kion li faris? — Iris al la urbo!
— Ĉu ŝi estas hejme? — Eliris, sed baldaŭ revenos.

From this, I would almost say that the rule about dropping the subject in everyday speech only applies to action verbs and only when answering questions. I suppose in the very rare case that one is answering a question with "esti", one could conceivably leave the subject out, but outside of this very limited scope, I don't see where one would ever have a subject-less "est- -a" construction.

no Esperanto-policce will come to tell you to correct that sentence because it is wrong

I'll do my best to take on that role. I will do so at least for my students.

Would saying "Uma!" or "Tiel ruĝa!" when seeing said fire truck be correct?

When you are a three-year old, yes.

As I always say, the important thing is the communication. When saying something, one has to make the receiver understand WHAT you are saying, and not HOW (unless intended to). I hate when people stares at me paying attention at my accent. Even though they're trying to be nice, they don't get what I'm talking about. That's why I try to make myself as clear as possible, and the same should apply here.

I definitely agree, that's why one should always use standard Esperanto in situations where you don't know the other people in the conversation very well.

erinja:

dimichxp:
It's correct, damnit. There is no strict rule on it.

Then you can go on happily speaking dimichxpsperanto and not Esperanto.

1. My first (correct) point was: "If one would say 'Estas uma.' it can be correctly interpreted as qualifying implied (context-dependend) subject as being 'uma"

This is actually the most wrong thing you've said.
If I walk up to a fire engine, and I say "Estas uma!", I'm not using correct Esperanto. This is different from the situations listed in PMEG. Even though we all understand that I'm talking about the fire engine, it hasn't even been mentioned before. The situations listed in PMEG are leaving off the subject in cases when stating the subject would be repeating something that was just said one second ago. You're taking an extremely limited set of circumstances in PMEG and extending it to a wide range of situations that it wasn't meant to apply to.

First of all, i'm not saying that every situation of implying subject is possible. My first intention was just to show that such constructions exists and can be interpreted that way (depending on context), and i said exactly what did you say above - such constructions occurs in rare circumstances because it's impractical to use them widely, they create more confusion than help.
But you are (seems to be) misunderstanding one thing. Implied subject is not used widely not because it's forbidden, not for grammatical reasons but for practical reasons. If it will be obvious (for example you will point with your finger) that you mean some object and tell to a colleague phrase with implied subject you will be absolutely correct. Again, there is no rule on it, it depends only on situation and common sense.

erinja:
You are over-applying the rule.

There is no rule for it. What i citated from PMEG is just a common principle and some examples. The set of situation where dropping the subject is limited, but it's not limited to examples from PMEG, it's limited to what is understandable and semantically correct.

erinja:
You can't just go around saying "Estas bona! Estas bela! Estas uma!", even in colloquial Esperanto.

Without context (whenever verbal or not) i can't do it. But i'm sure that exists such situation where it's possible and useful.

erinja:
So please, use a subject.

I will. And will recommend to the others. Even when the semantics will be clear without subject i still will be using it. Unless the correct construction with implied subject will work for better.