I only have access to PMEG, but have heard about PAG and how detailed a reference it is. Also, I have witnessed at least one debate in which, citing the said sources, contradicting answers to some grammatical questions were put forward.

So what's your idea. In circumstances where such disagreements arise, Which one is (usually) more credible?

They are both respectable authorities, but it may be true to say that PMEG is the best guide to current usage. In my view PMEG is clearer and more user-friendly as well. For speakers of English, Butler's Step by step is also worth consulting.

I am not familiar with PAG because I don't use it myself. Some people find it difficult to read due to the technical terminology used. PMEG uses easier vocabulary - it uses descriptive words instead of complex grammatical terms that you might not know.

The other advantages to PMEG are:

- PMEG is easier to navigate, being nicely hyperlinked together. There is now an online version of PAG that you can download in PDF form, which is convenient, though it isn't nicely hyperlinked like PMEG.

- The author of PMEG is still alive, and PMEG is mainly an online document. You can e-mail the author with a question and if he has time, he will probably answer you. As usage evolves, PMEG can still be updated. This isn't a criticism of PAG - it isn't the fault of PAG's authors that they're dead. But evidently usage had changed enough from the first edition of PAG (1935) to the third (1981) that the authors of PAG decided to publish a new edition. And of course now 30 years have passed since the last edition of PAG, so you might say that PMEG is able to capture the evolution of the language since the last edition of PAG.

Another great grammar resource is the English-language "Being colloquial in Esperanto". It was previously only available in book form but it is now available online as well.

Useful grammar links:
PAG
PMEG
Being Colloquial in Esperanto

Having said all this, don't get too hung up on the PAG versus PMEG issue. Pick the one that you find easiest to understand. There are sometimes debates on certain grammatical points, and even among very experienced speakers, there can be disagreements, so it's ok if PAG and PMEG don't agree on every single thing.

A small digression - a few years ago, I read the book Lingvo kaj Vivo, by Waringhien (one of the authors of PAG). It's a collection of essays about Esperanto's development and about linguistic aspects of Esperanto. One chapter was talking about grammatical disagreements. Waringhien assembled a list of grammatical situations where there could be some doubt as to the correct form, and he asked each member of the Academy of Esperanto to choose the correct form. Then he tabulated the responses (along with an indication of the native language of each Academy member). I was shocked at the differences. In some cases the answers were things that you could argue either for or against, with relative success. But some of the Academy members chose forms that I would consider to be downright wrong, and which I would mark as wrong if a student sent me a lesson using that form. It's difficult to join the Academy of Esperanto, and your Esperanto has to be at a very high level, plus you have to have made concrete contributions to the development of Esperanto literature or community. It opened my eyes to the wide range of opinions on certain topics, even among people who really know what they're talking about.

Moral of the story - don't sweat it. Pick either PAG or PMEG, whichever you find easiest to use, read and understand, and don't hesitate to follow its advice.

Miland: For speakers of English, Butler's Step by step is also worth consulting.

Thanks for the pointer

Useful grammar links:
PAG
PMEG
Being Colloquial in Esperanto

Well, Thanks a million. I did a cursory search on Google but couldn't find the online version of the PAG book.

Having said all this, don't get too hung up on the PAG versus PMEG issue. Pick the one that you find easiest to understand. There are sometimes debates on certain grammatical points, and even among very experienced speakers, there can be disagreements, so it's ok if PAG and PMEG don't agree on every single thing.

The question came up when in one of the threads that I initially created someone asked whether the -u verb form can be used after "esperi". Some said it's O.K but one of contributors said that laŭ PAG "esperi+u" ne estas ĝusta (la paĝo 307 rim 1)

Moral of the story - don't sweat it. Pick either PAG or PMEG, whichever you find easiest to use, read and understand, and don't hesitate to follow its advice.

I'm grateful for the advice.

omid17:The question came up when in one of the threads that I initially created someone asked whether the -u verb form can be used after "esperi". Some said it's O.K but one of contributors said that laŭ PAG "esperi+u" ne estas ĝusta (la paĝo 307 rim 1)

That would be one of the situations that I referred to, that you could really argue either way. I can see both sides of it, why it would be considered wrong, and also why you could argue that it would be correct (though with an additional nuance of meaning).

Even in the field of English grammar, all of the experts don't agree on every grammatical point, and it's fair to say that it's the same in Esperanto.

Erinja, do you happen to recall how that section (about grammatical disagreements) was headed in Lingvo kaj Vivo, I had a look in the index of my copy (priced in pre-decimal currency which shows how long ago I bought it) and nothing leaped out at me.

By the way, leafing through, I started reading the section 'La Vojo Nia' in which he argues very effectively about how reformists and constructors of IL conlangs miss the point.

Yet they still appear in the Forums, with their misconceptions.

My edition of PAG is the Fifth (corrected) edition, 1985.

But to answer the original poster's question, I've never seen much in PMEG that has struck me as misleading or wrong. PAG can be a hard read because of the multiple cross referencing and dense terminology.

Anyway, once you have some experience with the language and have read a few books you develop a sense of what is good and what is doubtful usage.

Being Colloquial in English, which I confess I don't know intimately, strikes me as a sound guide from what I have seen of it and very readable.

omid17:..someone asked whether the -u verb form can be used after "esperi". Some said it's O.K but one of contributors said that laŭ PAG "esperi+u" ne estas ĝusta (la paĝo 307 rim 1).

That section refers to the imperative after timi, not esperi. Apparently Zamenhof would use timi for time deziri, "be anxious that", instead of "be anxious in case". PAG discourages this use of timi, possibly to avoid misunderstanding.

sudanglo:Erinja, do you happen to recall how that section (about grammatical disagreements) was headed in Lingvo kaj Vivo, ...

Sorry, I don't recall (and I'm about to go away for a few days so I won't have access to my copy again until next Wednesday).

I think it may have been in a section about verbs. If there's an essay that's obviously about verbs, I'd look at that one. Or alternately, I think that the responses were printed in small tables, like in an actual grid of answers, so maybe you could flip through and look for a table, which should jump out in a book that's mainly straight-off text.

By the way, leafing through, I started reading the section 'La Vojo Nia' in which he argues very effectively about how reformists and constructors of IL conlangs miss the point.

There are very few Esperanto books that I've read that I felt were worth a second read, but I think Lingvo kaj Vivo is one of them. I liked some of the essays better than others, but some many of the essays presented very comprehensively (and clearly) why we do certain things in a certain way. Not to mention that the section about the development of Esperanto has the most detailed and insightful analysis I have ever seen, of likely reasons why Zamenhof chose certain forms but not others in his selections of grammar and vocabulary.

Even in the field of English grammar, all of the experts don't agree on every grammatical point, and it's fair to say that it's the same in Esperanto.

It's the same for Persian (my mother tongue) and I guess most of other natural languages to varying degrees. But for a conlang I didn't expect notable disagreements among the experts (as it's thoroughly preconceived and its foundation rigidly stated. So there is little room for guesswork. But Persian for instance can become too erratic at times due to invasions of Arabic and the diverse cultural background of its speakers)

Apparently Gödel's Incompleteness theorems can be applied to linguistics too!