EdRobertson:
PMEG Section 12.3.3.3 (Da - nekutimaj uzoj)

See the section on "Da-ismo". Here he makes up a rule banning the preposition DA except when expressing a complete prepositional phrase. Let us take an imaginary dialogue to show this usage:

Question: Ĉu vi havas multe da mono?
Answer: Mi havas multe da.

Wennergren surrounds the second of these two sentences with asterisks to suggest that this is not Esperanto.

I'm sorry, but it is Esperanto. Ordinary competent Esperanto speakers say stuff like this EVERY DAY. There is nothing wrong with it, and it is stylistically superior to the cumbersome and unnecessary repetition of "mono" in "Mi havas multe da mono", and to the vaguer, pragmatically inadequate alternative Wennergren insists on, "Mi havas multe".

In my opinion he is right. Da-ism is a mistake, as a preposition is to be followed by a noun.

And in my experience "Mi havas multe." is totally correct. "Ĉu vi povas doni al mi iom pli da vino, mi nur havas malmulte." or "Prenu la membrokotizon ĉi-jaran de mia UEA-konto. Ĝi devus enhavi sufiĉe."

There is a slight difference between "Mi havas multe." and "Mi havas multon." The former sentence implies that it is already specified by the contextwhat the speaker has. In the latter case it is not.

A mistake remains a mistake, even if many people make the same mistake. Just like "La somero komencas."

Bedaŭrinde mi nur havas malmute da. Sed almenaŭ iom da. Tamen mi ŝatus havi iom pli da. Ĉar nun mi ne havas sufiĉe da. Sed mankas nur iomete da. Hodiaŭ mi jam foruzos iom da. Pro tio mi morgaŭ havos malpli da. Sed sekvan fojon mi prenos multege da. Kaj tiam mi eble havos tro da. Sed nun mi havas maltro da.

johmue:There is a slight difference between "Mi havas multe." and "Mi havas multon."

To me both words imply that one has a lot of something. It is only a matter of usage. One can't have a lot of nothing, although speeches by politicians or "spokespersons" may be exceptions.

Miland:

johmue:There is a slight difference between "Mi havas multe." and "Mi havas multon."

To me both words imply that one has a lot of something. It is only a matter of usage. One can't have a lot of nothing, although speeches by politicians and "spokespersons" may be an exception.

Mi havas multon kaj malmulton ...

... multon por fari, multon por priplori kaj malmulton por priĝoji. Kompatinda mi ...

... for example.

erinja:I almost never hear that "multe da" form that Bertilo warns against. Certainly speakers of English would not be tempted to use that form, and it would sound ridiculous to me.

It certainly is common enough for BW to refer to it as a phenomenon. I haven't particularly noticed whether native speakers of English do it or not, but Miland may be correct in referring to it as a naciismo of some sort, and certainly in French or German, I would want to refer back to the money, without actually mentioning it, but not using a general expression that could be taken to be a lot of anything not necessarily money: "As-tu beaucoup d'argent?" "Oui, j'en ai beaucoup" rather than "Oui, j'ai beaucoup", and "Hast Du viel Geld?" "Ja, vieles" rather than "Ja, viel" (not sure whether that should be "Vieles" with a capital, I'm a bit vague on the new German orthography).

BW suggests that "da-ismo" may be related to "tiom-kiom-ismo", which is another thing I disagree with him on. I find that specifying that it's a quantity I'm referring to, not a quality or a variety, is quite a useful feature, so I find "tiom" plus adjective and "multe da" useful. Is the whole ethos of Esperanto not that if a feature is there, you're not just allowed to use it in one circumstance, but you can take advantage of it wherever you want?

erinja:Conversationally, people tend to let a lot slide, and it's easy to fudge your way through if you aren't sure. However if you are writing something to be published, and you want it to be correct, you tend to learn your grammar in much more detail, because you are consulting grammatical references, rather than just winging it in a conversation with that cute Esperantist from Ukraine.

Oh, come on now, why would meeting that cute Esperantist from Ukraine make somebody inclined to forget their command of Esperanto grammar, more than it would make somebody forget, let's say, their significant other back at home?

EdRobertson:It certainly is common enough for BW to refer to it as a phenomenon. I haven't particularly noticed whether native speakers of English do it or not, but Miland may be correct in referring to it as a naciismo of some sort, and certainly in French or German, I would want to refer back to the money, without actually mentioning it, but not using a general expression that could be taken to be a lot of anything not necessarily money: "As-tu beaucoup d'argent?" "Oui, j'en ai beaucoup" rather than "Oui, j'ai beaucoup", and "Hast Du viel Geld?" "Ja, vieles" rather than "Ja, viel" (not sure whether that should be "Vieles" with a capital, I'm a bit vague on the new German orthography).

"Ja, viel." is correct. "Ja, vieles." is wrong, no matter if with capital or not.

johmue:In my opinion he is right. Da-ism is a mistake, as a preposition is to be followed by a noun.

Ĝis! ????

johmue:A mistake remains a mistake, even if many people make the same mistake. Just like "La somero komencas."

I think most people I would consider to be competent speakers of Esperanto know "komenci" is transitive. However with obscurer verbs, I think most people neither know nor care what PIV thinks and insert an "-ig" or an "-iĝ" just to make sure.

Hairsplitters used to insist that "drinki" was intransitive. Now because of generations of Esperanto speakers insisting the contrary, PIV now "allows" us to do that. "Fiki" used to be transitive, but in these more enlightened days PIV allows us to "fiki" intransitively (although all the examples it gives are still transitive).

I suppose theoretically if you were using a word that could be a quantitative term but also could refer to the same thing in non-quantitative way, then using da without a following noun might be justified in order to show that you are refering to the quantity sense.

Ĉu estis belulinoj ĉe la kongreso. Amason da!

However, in general it strikes me as a register issue. Informal versus formal language, or jokey versus standard - the racy language of a teenager.

So in the context of a teaching grammar to promote good use of the language among beginners, it doesn't seem out of place - though I can't say I have often heard people use 'da' without a subsequent noun.

EdRobertson:"Ja, vieles" rather than "Ja, viel" (not sure whether that should be "Vieles" with a capital, I'm a bit vague on the new German orthography).

No, it shouldn't. However, actually in German I'd prefer viel, not vieles in such a case ... (although I doubt I'd even actually answer your question that way).

johmue:"Ja, viel." is correct. "Ja, vieles." is wrong, no matter if with capital or not.

darkweasel:No, it shouldn't. However, actually in German I'd prefer viel, not vieles in such a case ... (although I doubt I'd even actually answer your question that way).

Ok, thanks for that. I accept I shouldn't say "vieles" with mass things like money, I have to say "viel". But I can say "vieles" with countable individual things, can't I? E.g. "Hast Du vieles vor?" and "Hast Du viel vor?" are both ok, yes?

So have we established that "multe da" with no noun following it is not a germanismo, or is it?

EdRobertson:BW suggests that "da-ismo" may be related to "tiom-kiom-ismo", which is another thing I disagree with him on.

His claim (last two sentences on the page) does sound like speculation. Personally, I am not a da-ist but maybe something of a kiom-ist, in that I find William Auld's argument convincing, that kiom means "how much" while kiel means "in what way", i.e. kind rather than degree. (cf. No. 48 of Auld's Traduku, note on translating "how bad"). On the other hand, BW points out that the Fundamenta Ekzercaro, No. 10 has the example Mi estas tiel forta, kiel vi, so we can't discount its legitimacy. Possibly a case could be made for translating "how", when it means "to what degree", either way.