sudanglo:Malkutimeco estas tamen forta argumento. Oni ne senbezone esprimu sin en maniero tiel nekutima, ke oni eble ne estas komprenata. Prefere oni do uzu helpan tio ...
Anstataŭ pro ke, oni uzu pro tio ke (PMEG)

A beginner is asking for advice here Ceiger. It is not a place to peddle any fascination you might have for unused forms.

I'm not peddlin' no fascination for no unused forms thankyou sir, and since "por (tio) ke" been mentioned before me it's a bit too late don't you think? (But now that you've mentioned "peddling", I might just go back to being the good ol' Devil's Advocate, hm?)

I'm just saying what options they've got. Pro ke is one of them, and by becoming acquainted with it they might learn something. And it's only a preposition + noun clause, in this case I doubt usage is gonna really be necessary for anyone to understand it, unless they can't understand Esperanto noun clauses in general, in which case I'd recommend to any such beginner that they learn what "ke" is for.

Normally I'm not to fussed about "this word is rare ergo don't use" after I see a certain amount of people say it (thus being able to verify that), but in this case I would hardly doubt "pro ke" would stump anyone who knows what both words mean, and I think it'd do a beginner who doesn't know them help if they get acquainted with them.

PMEG (Sudanglo): Oni ne senbezone esprimu sin en maniero tiel nekutima, ke oni eble ne estas komprenata.

"Ke oni eble ne estas komprenata" I think is the key here. (Pro tio ke to me seems very uncharacteristically confusing for Esperanto. I don't really care about usage or WHO uses it, "tio ke" messes with my mind since "tio" is a placeholder for a noun but "ke" is ALSO a placeholder for a noun (along with the noun clause which follows it) - I'd only understand "pro ke" easily had I not heard of "pro tio ke" before).*

Plus, I'm surprised there isn't too much support (seemingly going from this thread) for "pro ke". I thought it was very creative and good use of the language using existing words in a self-explanatory way - something I think needs more encouraging in a language community where we haven't got too much liberty due to the fact we can't distort meanings or bring in new words for obvious reasons.

*Speaking of which, I'm assuming that in "pro tio ke", "pro tio" and "ke" aren't actually together, e.g.:
Mi malamas la hundon pro tio ke ĝi estas stulta?

If it weren't for the force behind it of usage, I'd just go "scrap that, it's way too complicated and more wordy than necessary". Ultimately it doesn't seem very much in the spirit of the language to me.

Anyway, for the poor beginner's sake, ĈAR is just the simple way!

ceigered:I'm just saying what options they've got. Pro ke is one of them, and by becoming acquainted with it they might learn something.

It is a form used hardly ever, and it would sound strange and wrong to most Esperanto speakers, therefore I would definitely NOT encourage beginners to use it. You would be doing them a disservice.

It's not about "would people understand it or not". There are plenty of forms that are rare or downright wrong, that would be understood perfectly, but that I wouldn't recommend to a beginner. A beginner's task is to learn normative Esperanto, and you are in fact *hurting* the beginner's learning if you teach them weird forms rather than standard forms. Once they speak standard Esperanto, if they decide the weird forms are more logical, they can use them if they want, but you're only adding confusion to the beginner's life if you encourage them to use strange grammar.

If you're going to go by "What's easiest for the beginner" then you might as well tell them not to bother learning the accusative, since people will usually understand them without it, right? Or not to bother learning any of the grammatical rules, since hey, you can speak pidgin Esperanto and people can still understand you pretty much, so no big deal!

...would hardly doubt "pro ke" would stump anyone who knows what both words mean, and I think it'd do a beginner who doesn't know them help if they get acquainted with them.

Them, what's "them"? The words pro and ke? A beginner can learn those words perfectly easily without resorting to weird and questionable grammar.

Pro tio ke to me seems very uncharacteristically confusing for Esperanto. I don't really care about usage or WHO uses it, "tio ke" messes with my mind since "tio" is a placeholder for a noun but "ke" is ALSO a placeholder for a noun

Quite frankly, it isn't our fault if that term confuses you. It's in normative use, so even if it doesn't seem like a natural combination for some people, for others it will seem perfectly logical. This is the language as it's spoken. "Pro tio ke" is the normative form, "pro ke" is the weird/questionable grammar. Beginners should be taught the normative form.

If "pro tio ke" is confusing for you, inserting a comma may help your comprehension. "Pro tio, ke..." might make things make more sense. I use "pro tio ke" in cases where I might have said in English "Because of the fact that..."

Plus, I'm surprised there isn't too much support (seemingly going from this thread) for "pro ke".

Why on earth would you be surprised that this thread isn't supporting a non-normative use of questional grammatical validity? Since when does this thread EVER support using unusual grammatical forms that are not used by any reputable authors and are not found in the body of Esperanto literature?

ceigered:Anyway, for the poor beginner's sake, ĈAR is just the simple way!

I agree with you there. For a beginner ĉar may be the simplest and best way.

Beginners might come across pro tio, ke when they're ready for reading phrases like "on account of the fact, that..". Later still, they might learn that tio can sometimes be treated as implicit. But in good time.

For maybe obvious reasons I recommend beginners don't really bother looking into this post.
@ Erinja:

OK I get it, I'm the big boogeyman and I'm stunting the growth of al the beginners.

But how on EARTH is "pro tio ke" better than "pro ke" apart from usage statistics?! If you're gonna call "pro ke" "weird/questionable grammar", then I'm gonna be blunt - doesn't that mean Esperanto's heading in the same direction as many natlangs where things like usage make the rules instead of what's grammatically possible or logical in the framework of the language?

It honestly does not make sense that "pro tio ke" is "correct", but "pro ke" isn't, and seems like an arbitrary selection made by the community.

It should be obvious here that I'm looking for more than just "usage". Otherwise, every unique combination of words in the language should be outright scrapped according to the rule that "if it's not used don't use it". Sure, it's good to respect that, but what about the creativity in the language?! Why can't we add this particular preposition to this particular noun clause? Why has the noun clause suddenly been refused the ability to behave as a noun clause?

ceigered:
But how on EARTH is "pro tio ke" better than "pro ke" apart from usage statistics?! If you're gonna call "pro ke" "weird/questionable grammar", then I'm gonna be blunt - doesn't that mean Esperanto's heading in the same direction as many natlangs where things like usage make the rules instead of what's grammatically possible or logical in the framework of the language?

Why wouldn't we expect and want the language to evolve as any other language would?

ceigered:

But how on EARTH is "pro tio ke" better than "pro ke" apart from usage statistics?!

Ceigered, I would say just go with the flow on this one. Don't get wound up about it. Yes, I think everyone understands your argument here - PMEG also points out that there are some instances where it's become quite accepted to omit the 'tio' (por ke, malgraux ke, anstataux ke, krom ke and sen ke) However, I would personally tend to put the 'tio' in there for all those cases just to be absolutely clear. Apart from 'por ke', that is.

I'm so used to hearing and reading 'pro tio, ke' that I have to say that it would indeed confuse me a bit if I heard someone just say 'pro ke'. It sounds too similar to 'por ke' for me.

Yes, logic out of the window here, but there you go. PMEG writes about this matter here

Ceiger, if you want to be scientific in applying your linguistics skills to Esperanto you could develop a theoretical framework as to why the international Esperanto-speaking community has developed certain preferences, where logic suggests several possibilities.

In this specific case it might be that because of what happens in the other European languages, the Esperantists have preferred 'pro tio ke' whilst accepting 'por ke'.

It might be that it is felt that 'pro ke' is too close in sound to 'por ke'. Maybe, Esperanto doesn't like a 'rolvorteto' ending in a vowel sound immediately in front of 'ke'. We don't say 'pri ke', preferring 'pri tio, ke'.

I don't know the answer.

But in any case you cannot just consider any particular usage in isolation. Other common usage has an influence.

The whole field of where Esperanto has certain preferences which a beginner might not expect (on the basis of logic) is, as far as I know, relatively unexplored. You could make a name for yourself here.

Searching with CorpusEye I found some instances of 'pro ke' but looking at the sources, quite a few of then seem to have come from one specific translation.

adrideo:Why wouldn't we expect and want the language to evolve as any other language would?

Perhaps better discussed in another thread, but then again most of this topic could have the same thing said of it

Anyway I personally feel that EO is sort of stuck between various expectations - some want to keep it stuck in the state they found it in, some want it to evolve into an entirely different language. I personally just want to use what we've got and take merciless advantage of the features the language offers (but with my penchant for minimalism being expressed - which is related to why I don't like "pro tio ke").

About the evolution of the language, I think most would prefer EO to evolve in a way that empowers it, if it has to evolve. Of course, we all have different viewpoints on that no?

Anyway, as Miland ("But in good time.") and Chainy (entire post) have said on the matter, I'll shutup on this topic for the next 5 seconds and go with the flow. I believe my bolded text should be enough to convince the uninitiated that I've just taken a stroll through a minefield and thus what to expect following in my footsteps!

sudanglo:if you want to be scientific in applying your linguistics skills to Esperanto [...] why the international Esperanto-speaking community has developed certain preferences, where logic suggests several possibilities.

[...]
The whole field of where Esperanto has certain preferences which a beginner might not expect (on the basis of logic) is, as far as I know, relatively unexplored. You could make a name for yourself here.

Well, I doubt I'll be making a name for myself anytime soon doing anything but now that you've mentioned it and the room temperature of this thread has gone down a bit, that's a very interesting avenue of research.

Also, there does seem to be a few here (including Sudanglo and Chainy) who suggest that "pro ke" might sound too similar to "por ke". Perhaps this only manifests in the rarity of "pro ke", since there is a viable alternative (ĉar), where as there is no alternative for pro/por when they are alone. The similarities might lie in the fact that some speakers might pronounce a small "o" vowel before the R in "pro" and after the R in "por", so they might both sound similar to a theoretical "poro" (maybe that R can be called a o-coloured R? ).

Anyway, thanks Sudanglo for giving me some sought of way to channel this 'frustration' of mine (it probably isn't really frustration, but the internet makes every emotion seem amplified!).

There's a long history of authors experimenting with the language. Sometimes this has lead to universal adoption of their initiatives, sometimes the experiments have been rejected.

Nobody seems to have wanted to change 'pro tio, ke' during the first 100 years. At least, I can't recall every hearing calls for change in the 50 years I have been an Esperantist.

I can't see why you are fussed. You know some French, don't you? They use 'ce que' all the time.

Cetere, kiom ofte vi kontribuas al la diskutoj en la Esperantlingvaj forumoj? Estus bone por la antaŭenigo de via scipovo, se vi foje esprimus viajn fortajn opiniojn tie.