T0dd:No, it really is about reforming Esperanto. To suggest that perfectly functional words, such as MALBONA, should be deleted from Esperanto and replaced by equivalent words is reform, not extension. This adds no expressive power to the language.

I disagree of course, but will say just a little for the time being since I've clearly touched a few nerves here. Suffice it to say that the words are not equivalent, any more than the English word unclean is equivalent to filthy, decadent, corrupt, perverse and other words that describe particular aspects or characteristics of something that's not clean. Since they're not equivalent, to speak of something merely as "the opposite of X" is necessarily vague and lacking in meaning. There's no possible way for unclean to encapsulate all those nuances of meaning in one word.

As for truly extending Esperanto, this is an ongoing process. Esperanto's lexicon is much larger now than it was in 1905. Nobody has any problem with that, in general, although various people take issue with various words.

To find the MAL- words disagreeable is nothing new. The neologisms to replace the more common ones have been around for a long time. You can find them in the Tekstaro. Most of them haven't caught on, but nothing stops you from using them. Just be aware that because they haven't caught on, using them will make you sound affected.

Using MAVA instead of MALBONA will sound, to Esperantists, pretty much the same as using UNGOOD instead of BAD sounds to English speakers. That is, you'll generally be understood, but you'll sound like a jerk. But don't let that stop you from making this your cause!

Don Harlow's explanation of the grammar rules suggests otherwise. He treats borrowed words like "mava" and "hati" and internally generated ones like "malbona" and "malami" as equally acceptable, so why should anyone object to the borrowed ones?

Epikuro57:
I disagree of course, but will say just a little for the time being since I've clearly touched a few nerves here. Suffice it to say that the words are not equivalent, any more than the English word unclean is equivalent to filthy, decadent, corrupt, perverse and other words that describe particular aspects or characteristics of something that's not clean. Since they're not equivalent, to speak of something merely as "the opposite of X" is necessarily vague and lacking in meaning. There's no possible way for unclean to encapsulate all those nuances of meaning in one word.

You've touched nerves because of the sheer arrogance of your position that because the MAL- words strike you as reminiscent of a plot device in a work of fiction written 60+ years after Esperanto was created, that these words must go. Since that unpromising start, you have backpedaled.

Logically, if your only problem with the MAL- words is that they are too vague, then that is an argument for new words, but not an argument for getting rid of the MAL- words.

As others have pointed out, the main source of the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. The word MALPURA is not meant to translate every possible nuance or connotation of dirtiness, any more than the English word "dirty" does. As you say, English has many other words, and so does Esperanto.

To be sure, you can say "dirty politician" in English, and that figuratively suggests corruption. You are free to try the same metaphor in Esperanto, or to use KORUPTITA or some other word.

Yes, MALBONA is vague, just as English "bad" is vague. Sometimes a vague word is all you need. When you need something more precise, Esperanto has other words you can use.

Using MAVA instead of MALBONA will sound, to Esperantists, pretty much the same as using UNGOOD instead of BAD sounds to English speakers. That is, you'll generally be understood, but you'll sound like a jerk. But don't let that stop you from making this your cause!

Don Harlow's explanation of the grammar rules suggests otherwise. He treats borrowed words like "mava" and "hati" and internally generated ones like "malbona" and "malami" as equally acceptable, so why should anyone object to the borrowed ones?

You are completely misrepresenting Don's view. You should have cited the source, but since you didn't, here it is: The 16 Rules

Done says nothing about how "acceptable" these words are, and only used them as illustrations of the difference between borrowed and compounded words. Some borrowed words, like BLOGO (instead of RETTAGLIBRO) really have entered the mainstream. Others, such as MAVA and HATI, have not. Persistently using the latter will indeed make you sound affected.

Forget sounding affected. If you use the word "hati" it is doubtful that anyone will even understand you. I had heard of "mava" before (though if someone used it in context I might struggle to remember the meaning) but "hati" is a completely new one too me.

Don definitely didn't consider such words to be equally as good as the words constructed from roots, and indeed, he does say in his text that for different words from a single root, it is better to use the internally-generated Esperanto form.

In other words, if you have the root am/i, it's better to make forms of am/i via Esperanto's method of word building (mal/am/i) than to invent a word based on the contents of other languages (hat/i)

I'm not actually addressing this note to Epikuro57, since he's behaving like a troll. I'm aiming these comments at the people manufacturing the troll food.

If Epikuro57 wants to speak some hybrid of Esperanto and his own made-up language, I say let him.

He'll call it Esperanto. We'll call it occasionally unintelligible. Eventually he'll figure out that just making up words does not lead to enhanced communication, and that the world actually won't adopt his "improvements" any more than they have the last uncountable number of other proposals.

He'll either eventually drift away muttering epithets about the rigidity of Esperantists, or he'll learn to speak properly. Either way, these arguments are neither new nor interesting, nor are they worth wasting any time on.

Hate doesn't need its own word (in regards with "hati") - hate does not truly exist as an emotion.

Hate is really just a place holder for anything from "I don't like hanging out with them" to "I want them dead". Thus, hate is really just the absence of both love and antipathy, and it's normal for the word "hate" to be used nowadays because "I want them dead" is verging on illegal, and is just a form of major irritation and "I don't like hanging out with them" is just dramatic nonsense if someone uses it as their definition of hate. Love on the other hand is a bit more complex (we could still deconstruct it, but unlike hate it doesn't just add up to someone being a jackarse, rather love is generally a combination of things which is better described with a single word).

As a fellow "hater" of mal-words (hate is wrong there, but I just want to demonstrate how it's used for overly dramatic and inaccurate representation of an emotion other than upmost love), I understand why someone might not like them. But their existence and use isn't necessarily a crime as "unhappy" demonstrates, since they can often be quite useful. I personally feel that certain important (all 4 of them or something like that) 'opposite' pairs need true differentiation and as T0dd said they do exist.

Read this for what I'm talking about
http://bertilow.com/pmeg/vortfarado/afiksoj/prefik...
(more or less a translation below of the last table with some font formatting by me)

trista (= malgaja, malĝoja) — Often used
kurta (= mallonga) — Often used enough
frida (= malvarma) — commonplace enough especially in constructed words (fridujo, fridvagono)
olda (= maljuna) — not common at all
liva (= maldekstra) — sometimes used; can be very useful, when it is necessary to quickly give instructions regarding left and right
dura (= malmola) — often used in technical language (wha? seriously?!); often has a certain amount of special meanings (dura vivo = “malfacila vivo”)

Notes:
- Trista = wonderful. After all, emotions rarely have true opposites (as hate/love shows). Honestly don't care too much though since I never use EO to write out the sorrows of my heart whenever they occur.
- Kurta, Frida = not too sure...
- Olda = not really useful - the idea is that young = out of the womb and old = knocking of death's door. Only and issue where elongated lifespans and biological immortality are concerned, in which case the idea of "old" is still only relevant to a creature which is meant to die some time during its life.
- Liva = great word. I'd use it all the time if everyone knew it. Alas not the case. I still try to use it though if only to peeve those who do know what it is and don't like it off.
- Dura = no comment - outside my field of expertise as devil's advocate.

(Frida's a tough one. Scientifically, the cold is simply "senvarma". On the human body scale, the cold is below room temperature and heat is above room temperature, so "malvarma" works there. But why is heat assumed to be the "default" state? See, it goes on in circles)

RE mava, I'm for it only since I think "bad" is too complex to be "ungood". However, as said before, you don't *need* to make every time you say "good/bad" a philosophical exposé on the traits of good and evil, so "malbona" suffices for selfish subjective statements (almost every one of them). Scientific discussion should never have good/bad brought into them if you want to be techincal.

You'll notice the notes both from Bertilow and my little ones I b-s'd up there show that they all have places in certain situations. If you really want that degree of precision, feel free (olda etc are strange ones though, avoid them I say) to use them whenever. If you want to look like a normal speaker, use them only when necessary.

RiotNrrd:If Epikuro57 wants to speak some hybrid of Esperanto and his own made-up language, I say let him.

He'll call it Esperanto. We'll call it occasionally unintelligible. Eventually he'll figure out that just making up words does not lead to enhanced communication, and that the world actually won't adopt his "improvements" any more than they have the last uncountable number of other proposals.

Bonega
--
I've prob. over mentioned the other constructed language I speak in my past posts, so I won't mention it here, but I will say the same newcomer "I want to improve things by making this change to the language" also occurs in the other language's e-mail group as well as here.

It seems to me that because it's a constructed language and not a natural one, those new to it think it gives them a licence to make any changes they like.

While they'll deny it, I believe 90% of them think that just by proposing changes (before they even learn enough to know what they're talking about in most cases) that it will give them instant, exalted status in the community instead of the firestorm that it always creates instead.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about anyone specifically, just a general trend I've been noticing both here and in the other conlang I speak.

It is not surprising that conlang enthusiasts should debate reforms. Probably those who are interest in such thing are more concerned with structure than with use.

Indeed, how much usage would there be to show what is established and what can still be changed.

Esperanto is different. If you want to master Esperanto, there's 100 years' of consistent usage to take into account.

sudanglo:Esperanto is different. If you want to master Esperanto, there's 100 years' of consistent usage to take into account.

Maybe people like Epikuro are simply not aware, that there are people who speak Esperanto every day. It is kind of mystifying that he thinks to be able to judge the expressive power of Esperanto better than fluent everyday speakers with years of experience in language usage.

His few own Esperanto sentences he have clearly shown that he is not able to speak Esperanto. Moreover it is obvious that he does not have much experience with foreign languages at all. Otherwise he'd know that words have only a meaning and not necessarily an equivalent in another language.

For example "pura" has a meaning that can be expressed by the english word "clean". That does not mean that "pura" and "clean" are equivalents. Anyone who speaks at least one foreign language would know that.

The good ol "send your complaints to the dictionary author not the language itself" solution

Most language learning problems I've ever had have been due to incorrect or misleading dictionaries, unfortunately for those in the business of making them.

Mathematicians don't help by using words with novel definitions or nonstandard definitions or making up words where a better one exists.

Sudanglo:It is not surprising that conlang enthusiasts should debate reforms. Probably those who are interest in such thing are more concerned with structure than with use.

I would not say that applies to all. That's a bit like saying black people are more likely to partake in tribal rituals because most tribal rituals are partaken in by black people (granted though this is a lot more offensive even if statistically it's a possible conclusion - after all white pagans also partake in similar rituals, as do some northern asiatic groups).

I would say it's more a beginner/casual conlanger thing, since structure is only one part of a conlang if you're interested in having a holistically complete language by the end of things.

If you're overfocussing on the structure of a language or aren't properly dedicated/don't have the right mindset, then structure will gain over-importance.

NiteMirror:I've prob. over mentioned the other constructed language I speak in my past posts, so I won't mention it here, but I will say the same newcomer "I want to improve things by making this change to the language" also occurs in the other language's e-mail group as well as here.

It seems to me that because it's a constructed language and not a natural one, those new to it think it gives them a licence to make any changes they like.

While they'll deny it, I believe 90% of them think that just by proposing changes (before they even learn enough to know what they're talking about in most cases) that it will give them instant, exalted status in the community instead of the firestorm that it always creates instead.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about anyone specifically, just a general trend I've been noticing both here and in the other conlang I speak.

What you say may be true of others who propose changes but not of me. My only concern is being able to express any thought in Esperanto that I can in English, that is not to lose in any way as a result of learning it. I've already seen how the unique structure of Esperanto makes it easier to learn than other languages and would only be interested in changes if they improve the language so it can be as expressive as possible.

Out of interest, what do you dislike about the mal- words?
Any changes of course have to follow the established grammar etc.