Kirilo81:there's need for an examination whether the use of X-intus with exclusive past reading breaks a rule or not.

Section 24 of the ekzercaro:

Fundamento:Mi ne farus la eraron, se li antaŭe dirus al mi la veron (aŭ se li estus dirinta al mi la veron).

Kirilo81:Se mi estus ricevinta mian honorarion jam morgaŭ, jam postmorgaŭ mi aĉetus novan aŭton.

Oh dear, my head's starting to hurt. Wouldn't that be the same as:

Se mi jam morgau ricevus mian honorarion, mi jam postmorgau achetus novan auton.

??

The use of '-us inta' seems uneccessary and clumsy in this particular case.

ceigered:
However, it could actually be interpreted as the first -us referring to a future action, and the second referring to an action even further in the future relative to the first one.

I think you're stretching it a bit there!

-----

Kirilo81:
I don't want to draw heady (? = tro fruajn) conclusions, there's need for an examination whether the use of X-intus with exclusive past reading breaks a rule or not.

Ok, I can imagine that this could be something interesting for someone into linguistics, but certainly not for your average Esperanto speaker.

I reckon the pattern is already set on this one, no theorizing is going to change how it's used in practice. People will no doubt continue to use it the way they do now regardless of what a linguistic study might conclude about the rules of the Fundamento.

And anyway, the example that Tommjames mentioned just there seems clear enough.

tommjames:Section 24 of the ekzercaro:

Fundamento:Mi ne farus la eraron, se li antaŭe dirus al mi la veron (aŭ se li estus dirinta al mi la veron).

Thanks, a good example for anteriority (antaŭe) - what one would expect, as -inta expresses temporal anteriority. As this sentence would make no sence when said about a possible event in the future, a past reading here is the only possible. But that's from context, so it doesn't help us here.

Chainy:The use of '-us inta' seems uneccessary and clumsy in this particular case.

Yes, it was just a demonstration. In fact, X-intus is nearly always unnecessary, unless you give it a temporal reading the norm-conformity of which I doubt.

Chainy:Oh come on Kirilo, there are always grey areas. Why be against the use of 'far'?!

Not in this case, see Fundamento, §11 (my emphasis): "All forms of the passive are rendered by the respective forms of the verb est (to be) and the participle passive of the required verb; the preposition used is de, „by”. E. g. ŝi est'as am'at'a de ĉiu'j, „she is loved by every one”."

BTW, the derivation of far from fari by change of morphem class breaks the rules of Esperanto word formation.

Chainy:I reckon the pattern is already set on this one, no theorizing is going to change how it's used in practice. People will no doubt continue to use it the way they do now regardless of what a linguistic study might conclude about the rules of the Fundamento.

I have no illusions that my remarks will change anyone's mind. However, Esperanto is not a language as all others, because the foundations of its norm are defined by a document, the Fundamento, not by the arbitrarity and changeability of its speakers.
In fact, form a normative point of view, if you use e.g. far, you don't speak Esperanto anymore, but a dialect very similar to Esperanto.

Kirilo81:As this sentence would make no sence when said about a possible event in the future, a past reading here is the only possible. But that's from context, so it doesn't help us here.

I see. Well in that case do let us know if your own examinations of the Fundamento ever lead you to anything that prohibits a form the document's very author made repeated use of. That would indeed be an interesting find

Kirilo81:BTW, the derivation of far from fari by change of morphem class breaks the rules of Esperanto word formation.
[...]
In fact, form a normative point of view, if you use e.g. far, you don't speak Esperanto anymore, but a dialect very similar to Esperanto.

Let it be known that I hate "far"
Regardless, the controversy with "far" is not that it's against normal word construction, but A) as a "new root" it is too close (well, identical) to the existing root far-, which technically does occur in esperanto (al vs. al-), but it's "evitinda"/something we'd probably be better off eviting

The other controversy of course is whether it's needed or not, which IMHO is "no".

A user of "far" though still speakers Esperanto if another speaker or a community of speakers recognises the language as Esperanto, which, if they only use "far" as their sole "change to the language" and have an understandable accent, would make them still speaking Esperanto, as the definition of a language, regardless of origins, is basically what the speakers say it is, which is why English as Americans speak it and English as Australians speak it are still the same languages (well, for now - I saw a funny option in a game today to select the menu language as a variety of western languages, incl. both "American" and "English" haha!)

Of course, the same applies for dialects as well, a speaker community needs to define what really is a "dialect" and not just a verbal form of virtual dyslexia. In this case, the use of "far" would be so unnoticeable, and even if it was noticed, most speakers would just completely disregard a single word, thus classifying it as still the same "dialect", unless they got really hung up on it (like me )

Kirilo81:

Chainy:Oh come on Kirilo, there are always grey areas. Why be against the use of 'far'?!

Not in this case, see Fundamento, §11 (my emphasis): "All forms of the passive are rendered by the respective forms of the verb est (to be) and the participle passive of the required verb; the preposition used is de, „by”. E. g. ŝi est'as am'at'a de ĉiu'j, „she is loved by every one”."

BTW, the derivation of far from fari by change of morphem class breaks the rules of Esperanto word formation.

Ok, I'm willing to modify what I said. I've just been reading PMEG, and I like what it says there. I probably wouldn't use just 'far', but I certainly have found myself using 'fare de' at times. PMEG gives some good examples.

I've just realised that I get a bit wound up when I come across those classic cliches such as 'it contradicts the Fundamento', 'you're not speaking Esperanto anymore, but a dialect' etc.... Especially when it relates to one tiny little word, or this or that phrase.

Maybe it's because I've seen huge and generally far too emotional debates ensue, and then if you step back, take a deep breath and look at how the people on both/all sides are actually using Esperanto, they all tend to be using language which is at least 99.9% smack bang on in accordance with the Fundamento!!