ceigered:Why do people think any languages are exempt from change and arbitrary critique?

You have to remember that the Esperanto movement is trying to do something unique in the history of the world. Because Esperanto is an invented language, people automatically assume that it could be enhanced, improved, etc all over again. The only problem is that, as this discussion proves, everybody has a different idea of what should be enhanced, improved, etc. At some point, the rubber has to meet the road and people have to start using the language for the movement to have any success. Esperanto reached that point decades ago.

Ask yourself this, whenever someone starts discussing language reform for the English language, people get emotional, laugh at the attempts, and usually ignore it. Why? English could be improved and, IMHO, is in desperate need of spelling reform. And yet, everytime the attempt is made it goes nowhere. But, for whatever reason, Esperantists aren't suppossed to feel the same way about their language as the majority of English speakers feel about that tongue? It is an emotional issue. It is even more emotional in the Esperanto community than in the English community since English has never been threatened by schisms which could doom the language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Esperanto

Zamenhof was himself about to eliminate the definite article from Esperanto, but fortunately he didn't.

tommjames:

Roberto12:Iu muso = a certain mouse

No, "iu muso" means "some mouse", that is, neither the speaker nor listener knows or cares which particular mouse it is. To describe something as "certain" you would need this knowledge. From PMEG:

PMEG:Iu montras, ke la identeco de la priparolata individuo estas nekonata aŭ neklara, aŭ ke la identeco ne estas grava.

Iu shows that the identity of the individual being discussed is not known, or is unclear, or that the identity is unimportant.

If you wanted to indicate certainty you would say "unu muso", if the mouse is known to you as the speaker. If you wanted to show it's known to both the speaker and the listener you could say "certa muso".

Okay, I accept the "iu" bit, but I'm not sure about the "unu" and "certa" bits. I thought unu = one (as opposed to a different number) and certa = certain (e.g. a fact).

Roberto12:I thought unu = one (as opposed to a different number)

As the PMEG page I linked to explains, "unu" has more uses than this.

Roberto12:and certa = certain (e.g. a fact).

That is its main meaning but it can also be used before substantives to show that the identity is known, like in English "on certain occasions.." en certaj okazoj..

I should correct myself though where I said "certa" is used to show the identity is known to both parties. According to PMEG it's just a more emphatic way of stressing that the identity is known to the speaker, as you would do with "unu".

tommjames:to show the identity is known to both parties ...

... we use la.

darkweasel:

tommjames:to show the identity is known to both parties ...

... we use la.

Unless of course we got rid of the definite article

ceigered:

tommjames:

darkweasel:Why do people keep proposing changes to a living language?

+1

Why do people think any languages are exempt from change and arbitrary critique? (I don't agree with the original proposal, but just because you also don't agree doesn't mean you should just shut down to any proposal of change full stop. Imagine if we applied such a train of thought to the legal system of years gone by:
A) "Let's let axe murderers off with a slap on the bottom!"
B) "No, that's a terrible idea!"
A) "Let's make it so shooting your neighbour is ok if they shot your dog!"
B) "That's it, I've had enough. Why do people continue to propose changes to a living and functional system of law?"
C) "Let's outlaw the death penalty for petty theft!"
B) "Nup, sorry, no changes."
Now I'm not saying let's change the :::: out of Esperanto. On the flip side there are proposals that would totally change Esperanto into another language only bearing the same name. This is somewhat naïve because even if you do end up with a new language with the same name, it's not like the speakers of the previous language suddenly convert and that "old Esperanto" simply ceases to be. But at the moment I'm starting to sense the neutrality that Esperanto claims to have in its speaker base slowly slipping, with people becoming more and more reactionary about these kinds of things.

If I got it right, then you think that people like you, who either don't really want to learn the language or don't have the nessary competence to learn it, have every right to propose changes to a more than 120 years old language, and everybody who ignores this is reactionary.
Who do you think you are?

tommjames:

ceigered:

Forgetting for a moment that it isn't even possible to "get rid" of the definite article in Esperanto [...] Similarly if someone quickly rejected such a proposal you wouldn't accuse them of being reactionary or closed off to all change. You would, presumably, consider that a naturally acceptable response.

Why then do you feel differently with regards to Esperanto? Esperanto is not a proposal, it is a fully formed, mature and "living" language. All I ask is that people treat it as such. Surely that's not unreasonable?

I never said that it was possible to get rid of the definite article. Just the way the response I was replying to didn't mention the definite article at all, it appeared to chuck all change into the same box and say "do not open". Taking the definite article out of Esperanto is somewhat silly and naïve (as I said), but does "Why do people persist on changing Esperanto?" without actually giving an argument as to why it's impractical address the original question? No, all it does is make the original poster feel like they've been demonised.

(and yes, a proposal to get rid of "la/the" would look silly. But in that case, one would say "that's a silly idea", not "why do people want to change Esperanto/English". The person would go "erm, what conversation are you part of? I was just talking about how I hate "the" and you just went off on some tangent about language reform".)

horsto:If I got it right, then you think that people like you, who either don't really want to learn the language or don't have the nessary competence to learn it, have every right to propose changes to a more than 120 years old language, and everybody who ignores this is reactionary.
Who do you think you are?

I don't think you've understood me correctly. Quite frankly I'm (probably misunderstandingly and immaturely, knowing myself) offended at the way you addressed me there ("People like you" and "Who do you think you are" came off very anti-egalitarian and as if you were trying to demonise me for some reason, maybe I misunderstood you), but anyway, I'll just clear up what I was trying to say. I never said that anyone who opposes anyone trying to change the language is reactionary, and I never said that everyone should have the right to change it. Rather, I was saying that people should still have the right to mention ideas about change they have in the head and then have the right to be told in an explanatory, helpful and constructive way whether their idea is good or bad. The proposal does not have to be accepted, but people should not just be shut-up without explanation. Remembering, of course, that not everyone knows the consequences of a change to Esperanto. Some just don't understand why things are, or why people want things to stay as-is. To many, Esperanto is a new thing, thanks to the internet which has propagated our bela lingvo. And these people will not understand by just being told "no", because they don't have years of experience in the movement to understand these things yet.

And I ALSO did not side with those wanting to reform either - as I said, most reforms are somewhat naïve as they rely on an entire speaker group changing to another language with the same name slapped on the front.

andogigi:But, for whatever reason, Esperantists aren't suppossed to feel the same way about their language as the majority of English speakers feel about that tongue?

I understand. Maybe I'm just a lot more coldhearted and less sentimental than many, but I feel that if we put too much emotion into anything, it will no longer be a neutral and inclusive attempt to do whatever is meant to be achieved.

At some point, the rubber has to meet the road and people have to start using the language for the movement to have any success. Esperanto reached that point decades ago.

A century ago now wouldn't it be? But yeah, a bit above you can see why I said what I did, it's not because I necessarily want change but rather think that the "rejection process" is a bit uninformative and failing to help people understand the reason for such mass-rejection of any reform ideas.

k1attack:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Esperanto

Zamenhof was himself about to eliminate the definite article from Esperanto, but fortunately he didn't.

I believe that if that reform had been successful, that Interlingua would be the main IAL nowadays. Thank goodness that boat never left port, otherwise we'd have yet another "shovelware" regurgitated-romance-language

Personally I think that a perfect IAL indeed wouldn't have articles. However, you can't remove it from Esperanto as Esperanto is a living language where you can't reform anything, especially not such basic parts.