chicago1:with only a few minor tweaks here and there ..

Now, why does that sound familiar? Anyway, looking at the tweaks you suggest:

1, Mi is fine by me. I don't recall anyone confusing it with ni.
2. Correlatives are not difficult for experienced users of Esperanto. They are only a problem for beginners. So I would not change kie to kive or kiel to kimel or kval.
3. You may "despise" ĉi tie, but again the particle ĉi is not a problem for people who have had a little experience with the language. So I don't need ĉite or ĉitju.
4. It doesn't matter if the reason why Zamenhof used the beginning ĉi- for "every" eludes you. It's part of the language. That's all you need to know, in order to learn and use it.
5. I have been corrected by forumanoj myself for omitting the accusative sometimes, but that's not an argument for dropping it, just being more careful. The most that can be said is that beginners who forget to put it in are liable to be understood from the context more often than not.
6. Negatives are not a problem for me. Malfacila, malriĉa and malgranda come easily to anyone who's used to the prefix.
7. Ino again is just a suffix; patrino or virino are well-known words, not sexist statements, and they are going to stay.
8. Plurals: Zamenhof did consider using -i instead of -j, but the reform was rejected. To me it's no big deal.
9. Why should fari mean "to do" while fi is an indicator of shame? If you ask me, it is better for a verb to be based on a root consisting of a whole syllable like far' than simply a letter f. A single syllable like fi is more suitable for a particle or prefix (as here).
10. Why se, sen, sed? It matters not. They are part of the language, and experienced users don't have a problem with them.

In sum, I don't see any compelling reason for accepting the reforms that you suggest. That they appeal to you is not sufficient; the difficulties that you experience as a beginner will diminish as time goes on. So I suggest that you now put away the urge to reform the language, and learn and practice it as it is, and we can go back to discussions about things that matter, like answering those who say that the Apollo missions were faked ..

^ respondas serioze al trolo (answers seriously to a troll)

johmue:Oh dear, not again. Come back when you learned Esperanto properly.

* * *

But leave this debate to the ones who can speak the language. If you want to contribute, learn the language first.
.

Johnmue, I'm going to assume that your initial response takes precedence over your second remark about my lack of mastery of Eo, where you quickly qualified your admonition to be directed to someone suggesting changes - which I'd probably agree with. But your responses like your initial one above - which speaks loudest ("come back when...") - should be banned from these threads, esp one where English speakers are trying to learn the language. While I think that would be inappropriate even in the Eo threads, at least there it would be less surprising.

Miland - thanks for taking the time to address my instructor's points with reason and free of emotion. I may not agree with all of your responses, but respect your explanations.

darkweasel:answers seriously to a troll

Labels like "troll" save us the effort of thinking, do they not? I chose to deal with the question, and so accepted the risk of wasting time. It's not your concern, if you do not wish to get involved.

chicago1:

johmue:Oh dear, not again. Come back when you learned Esperanto properly.

* * *

But leave this debate to the ones who can speak the language. If you want to contribute, learn the language first.
.

Johnmue, I'm going to assume that your initial response takes precedence over your second remark about my lack of mastery of Eo, where you quickly qualified your admonition to be directed to someone suggesting changes - which I'd probably agree with. But your responses like your initial one above - which speaks loudest ("come back when...") - should be banned from these threads, esp one where English speakers are trying to learn the language. While I think that would be inappropriate even in the Eo threads, at least there it would be less surprising.

Look, it's easy: As you say, this forum is for English speakers who are trying to learn Esperanto. If that's your intention, welcome.

This forum is not, what you are using it for, to discuss possible improvements of Esperanto. If that's your intention, come back when you learned Esperanto well. Maybe not here but somwhere else in the Esperanto world. And especially: in Esperanto.

Miland:
1, Mi is fine by me. I don't recall anyone confusing it with ni.

Especially by replacing "mi" by "me" and leave "min" as it is, is quite a braindead idea. How about "mia"? How about "mian"? It breaks the whole logical structure of the pronouns to solve a problem that does not exist in the every day use of Esperanto.

2. Correlatives are not difficult for experienced users of Esperanto. They are only a problem for beginners. So I would not change kie to kive or kiel to kimel or kval.

Take a look at the correlatives in the indefinite form: "io", "iu", "ia", "ie", "iam", "iel", "ial", "iom", "ies".

You see they have only one consontant. That makes them pronouncable very fast without swallowing a sylable.

Its easy to say "Kiel vi fartas?" very fast whereas "Kimel vi fartas?" would pronounced fast end up in "'mel vi fartas". Same with "kive". So for the everyday language use -- something chicago and his teacher obviously don't have much experience about -- the one consonant correlatives are much more feasible. The problem of misunderstanding does in the everyday language use not exist.

3. You may "despise" ĉi tie, but again the particle ĉi is not a problem for people who have had a little experience with the language. So I don't need ĉite or ĉitju.

Same here. Chicago is showing that his teacher does not know much about the every day spoken language.

The same is valid for all the other points. There are much more interesting things in Esperanto that are worthwhile discussing about. The ones chicago wants to discuss are of the kind "beginner has difficulties to learn Esperanto and wants to blame the language for that."

Still chicago's first sentence of correct Esperanto is yet to be seen. Or maybe I missed something. In the two sentences he has shown in this thread, he made no less than seven mistakes.

johmue:

Miland:
1, Mi is fine by me. I don't recall anyone confusing it with ni.

Especially by replacing "mi" by "me" and leave "min" as it is, is quite a braindead idea. How about "mia"? How about "mian"? It breaks the whole logical structure of the pronouns to solve a problem that does not exist in the every day use of Esperanto.

Additionally, as some might my have experienced, in various informal registers of English, "me/I" is replaced by "we/us" (especially for more sociable speakers). In Chinese, the plural pronoun for first person is made by simply affixing "-men" to the "wo" (I/me).
In short, there is not an important enough reason to differentiate heavily between I/we, and in writing it doesn't matter.

M and N are ridiculously common sounds in languages anyway, so the speaker will have little trouble correctly differentiating between mi/ni.

So on the off chance there's a misunderstanding, it won't be major anyway and getting someone to repeat something is easy. (voicing distinctions in some languages though (p/b, k/g) are MUCH harder. Luckily that isn't the case for us)

2. Correlatives are not difficult for experienced users of Esperanto. They are only a problem for beginners. So I would not change kie to kive or kiel to kimel or kval.

Take a look at the correlatives in the indefinite form: "io", "iu", "ia", "ie", "iam", "iel", "ial", "iom", "ies".

You see they have only one consontant. That makes them pronouncable very fast without swallowing a sylable.

And in a language with such a large amount of different syllables that are possible, it's best to try and have smaller words with less consonants when possible, especially for common things like "kiu" etc. Languages like Japanese get away with so many syllables per word since there's only a few possible syllable structures you have to learn. In EO, it's nearly infinite compared to Japanese. Languages with heaps of consonants *tend* to favour simpler words, like English and Chinese.

3. You may "despise" ĉi tie, but again the particle ĉi is not a problem for people who have had a little experience with the language. So I don't need ĉite or ĉitju.

Same here. Chicago is showing that his teacher does not know much about the every day spoken language.

And the difference between "ĉi tie" and "ĉite" is so small it's not funny. It's really just the difference between a space and no space.

In fact, the EO system is pretty good. ĉi = somethings close, "tiu" = this or that (the thing being referred to or one thing out of a possible selection). Rarely is it that easy in any language.

Ultimately, there's no substantial reason to change EO. It's been said heaps, but you might as well just create a new language and start from scratch. It makes no sense to haphazardly change random bits of the language without any clear benefit in the end, while not changing other problems the language might have.

For instance, EO's word stock is irregular and words are a mouthful at times, why not focus on those sorts of problems in building a new language? You could do what Interlingua did and use a more international (probably pseudo-latinate) vocabulary, shorten words in a sensible manner that doesn't damage how recognisable they are, make meanings more generic and ergo flexible for the international community, and have a pretty cool thing in the end.

You, or your friend, I think would find this more satisfying than trying to propose heavy, pointless changes to an already living language.

----
BTW fellow EOists, please do not take offence at anything I'm saying here, just being blunt to get my message across since my English vocabulary is rather random itself.
----

Let's be honest. EO is as good as it gets. There's simply too many flaws to make it better without only adding to the problems. And using EO as a vector for change, or using EO as a template for a new language, is simply "following in the father's footsteps", including all the mistakes that "father" has made (including the good things too).

The only way you can achieve an outcome different to whatever EO is destined to have is to have something different to Esperanto, otherwise your changes will only ever achieve ONLY what Esperanto can achieve, which means if you or your friend feel strongly for them, you're essentially letting the success of your ideas be nothing more than a shadow to Esperanto, and any success they meet will be EO's, not the merits of the ideas at all.

If you feel that what I've said about EO is a bit damning, then why worry about changing it then? If you seek perfection, you must seek it wholeheartedly. If you seek a half-hearted outcome, then doing it wholeheartedly is expending energy you could use in other ways.