qwertz:

erinja:
I would never say that something with 421 hits was obviously more common than something with 300 hits, but we are talking about a couple of factors of 10 here. Google searches are an unscientific tool but it gives you an order of magnitude idea of how common something is in everyday use.

Sorry, I don't trust a daft Google rating algorith which isn't capable to filter faked online banking webpages etc to build up my opinion about something. Hey, vere not.

Well technically, there's no reason to not trust Google because of that, since it's doing what it was made to do perfectly - give you results for searches. Google tries its hardest not to filter, but of course that must sometimes be done depending on the country. The problem is trusting the content itself, outside of Google's control; and that's why I semi agree with you, since not everything that gets searched will be as reliable as PMEG, the academy or a well written wikipedia site. That said, we can sort of assume that if one number is bigger than another, there must be more of that thing on the internet, and perhaps that may correlate to real world figures. A gamble, in a sense.

One thing to bear in mind with Google searches is the number of results displayed on the initial results page is estimated, and does not always tally up with the actual number. There have been quite a few times when I've done a search and got a couple of thousand hits or so, but when scrolling through to only the 3rd or 4th page they suddenly end. Also there can be many pages where the hits all come from the same piece of text, that has just been posted onto several sites, or appears many times in the same site.

But for searches in the hundreds of thousands/millions of results I think the Google method is fairly reliable for Esperanto. It's a blunt tool of course, but it can give you a general picture that can be quite useful.

The simple answer to all this fuss over 'La kioma' is that questions in Esperanto (that use a Ki-word) never (practically never) begin the sentence with 'La'.

You will not find La kies , La kio, La kiu, La kia -or la kioma - at the beginning of the question sentence.

Tom makes the point that when you mishear something, you might possible request a repetition by asking 'Vi diris ke ŝi havas la kion?.

But I find it less likely that you would say 'La kion, ŝi havas?' Maybe, if you mishear a date, or an amount, or a time, you might say 'La kioman, vi diris?

Anyway if this is possible, the 'la' is being used to refer back to something previously identified - which is a normal use of 'la'.

There does seem to be a lack of logic in using 'La kioma' to ask the time - because you are not wearing your watch.

sudanglo:The simple answer to all this fuss over 'La kioma' is that questions in Esperanto (that use a Ki-word) never (practically never) begin the sentence with 'La'.

You will not find La kies , La kio, La kiu, La kia -or la kioma - at the beginning of the question sentence.

Tom makes the point that when you mishear something, you might possible request a repetition by asking 'Vi diris ke ŝi havas la kion?.

But I find it less likely that you would say 'La kion, ŝi havas?' Maybe, if you mishear a date, or an amount, or a time, you might say 'La kioman, vi diris?

Anyway if this is possible, the 'la' is being used to refer back to something previously identified - which is a normal use of 'la'.

There does seem to be a lack of logic in using 'La kioma' to ask the time - because you are not wearing your watch.

Yes, but the difference is that other (non-KI) correlatives don't have la either. So if you answer a question that uses a KI-correlative using another correlative, this answer doesn't have la either.

But if you ask a question with kioma, you definitely expect an answer that does use la. Everything, except maybe for things like meznokte, that is a valid answer to a kioma-question, does use la.

darkweasel:But if you ask a question with kioma, you definitely expect an answer that does use la. Everything, except maybe for things like meznokte, that is a valid answer to a kioma-question, does use la.

True, but this does not necessarily mean that it's the better method (not saying YOU were saying that, just for balance's sake)

After all, "Kiu estas via hundo?" can be replied to with "la hundo kun la mucidaj strioj (estas la mia)."

Not that I see it as being wrong either. But it's not necessarily more logical to use "la kioma" based on the premise that you're expecting "la tria horo" (in that case, "kioma estas la horo" is possible).

Anyway, it seems that, in comparison:
Kioma estas (la) horo
- emphasises that this is a question, and that we don't know what number the hour is.
where as,
La kioma horo estas
- deemphasises the question word, and instead acts like a statement rather than a question, but with the adjective for "horo" replaced with the question word. Like how one may ask for confirmation or a repeat of the answer to their question.

So, from rereading a tonne of times with a slightly stunned brain, it's starting to feel like "kioma estas (la) horo?" is a genuine, normal question. "La kioma horo estas?" rather seems to translate to the English pseudo-question "The time is....." (which, after the pause, begs a response from someone else - except for here, the word order and use of "la" negate the need for a pause). So "La kioma horo estas?" seems like the questioner has a bit of an idea what the time was or has an idea of what the response was or is looking up the time as they are speaking, or is giving one of those impressions or related, and thus is begging assistance from someone else in a non-blunt way.

(since "la", and "kioma" directly modyfying "horo" seems to be indicating a sense of subtextual knowledge, where as a blunt "kioma" seems to be indicating none of that).

sudanglo:Tom makes the point that when you mishear something, you might possible request a repetition by asking 'Vi diris ke ŝi havas la kion?.

But I find it less likely that you would say 'La kion, ŝi havas?'

I agree, that kind of usage is virtually unseen. But then we seem to be back onto the frequency of usage argument. My very first post in this thread should clarify my position on that, if at this point it's still of any interest.

Regarding the logic, you could argue that the fact that asking the time is almost always responded to with "la" provides sufficient grounds to extend that logic into the manner of asking the question. Note that I say "grounds", not "obligation", nor "reason", nor much else. Just a way of thinking about it that is valid. Whether this corresponds to your idea of "referring back" I doubt, but in any case I don't think "la" has to refer back to something. Of course it's usually used that way, heck I've had to explain this point god knows how many ways to my Russian girlfriend who still has trouble with the article. But it's perfectly possible to ask questions with "la" where the thing being asked about and/or its specifics are neither established by context, nor known by the questioner. Examples have already been provided in previous posts.

There is a difference between referring to an actual hour, and referring to "the hour", the latter being essentially a variable which could have any value. The "alparolato" knows this value. That is all that is required, when using the article. I'll happily admit I'm wrong on that in face of actual evidence. I've seen none so far.

So no, at this point I see nothing incorrect about "la kioma horo estas", apart from the fact hardly anyone asks the time in this way. That is arguably a good reason to avoid using it, indeed it's the main reason I do avoid using it. But let's not confuse this with ideas that it's wrong on a grammatical level.

A point that might be worth making in this discussion is that appeals to usage have a slightly different force in respect of Esperanto to what they do in respect of the national languages.

Whilst such appeals are a clincher argument for the national languages, Esperantists have maintained for some 100 years or so a vigorous tradition of logic and clarity - to the point even of replacing previous words and expressions if better alternatives are found.

Given this tradition, if during this century-long period the Esperantists have not replaced a compound word or expression it tends to imply that the logic has not been found faulty.

So whilst appeals to usage are not the end to a discussion in Esperanto as they would be for a national language, they may yet fully justify a usage.

In other words, if something in Esperanto has withstood the test of time then its logic and clarity are probably sound.

sudanglo:Given this tradition, if during this century-long period the Esperantists have not replaced a compound word or expression it tends to imply that the logic has not been found faulty.

I'm not sure whether the point you're making is actually true, because for this to be known we need more than just some anecdotical evidence in the form of a few examples. I'm for example not at all sure that we didn't gain a few idiotisms too.

But in any case I think we should want it to be true. This however does also imply that we should be prepared to clarify every detail when it comes into question, even after a century, and certainly in a site which is dedicated to learning. This in contrast to what was happening in the beginning of this thread, where it was tried to settle the whole issue of 'la kioma' with 'we don't say it like that', which seemed to me pretty unacceptable.