Talk:-it-

Esperanto orthography
I don't get what you mean about the examples. If "dungi" means "to employ", that would seem like the most wildly relatable example of an agent/patient relationship possible. This aspect of the orthography stressing cause/effect relationships seems designed to express ideas about karma, so I consider following Fundamento more important here than following what European speakers do. Thx for making valid points, altho you probably deleted more than you needed to. Eaterjolly (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Avant-garde
I find these Esperanto examples 1 interesting, although my English translation does seem a bit too speculative. If the Esperanto is valid, then I could do a more solid English translation.

Also, about the usage notes: Fundamento de Esperanto has some non-trivial ambiguity which might serve a greater purpose, so are we sure we want to hide that ambiguity completely? Eaterjolly (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , the main issue is that your grasp of Esperanto, unfortunately, appears quite low. Do you not see the mistake in basic constructions such as  (diff)  or,   (diff)? If you are struggling with sentences as simple as those, I don't think you're in a position to develop new theories about Esperanto grammar. Audrey (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mistake seems quite subjective here. Accusative -n might seem unnecessary but not confusing either. I do not know about new theories, but I know that experience always comes with bias. Uniting most life on earth with Esperanto requires making first impressions valid. To say "the main issue is that your grasp of Esperanto" does not sound like something which someone following the spirit of "to render the study of the language so easy as to make its acquisition mere play to the learner" would say. Esperanto contributors should follow a different protocol and Esperanto contributions should meet different criteria than those for other languages. You completely ignored the part where I said the ambiguity might serve a greater purpose. Would you deny ambiguity exists whether -ote, -ate, or -ite require "respective forms of the verb est (to be)" ? If we deny that, then that ends all doubt about what to do. Eĉ se ni malkonsentus do ankoraŭ dankon por zorgi Esperanton! Eaterjolly (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the construction «Mi estos politikiston*» is flatly wrong, and indicates to me a very fundamental misunderstanding of the Esperanto case system. There's not much else I can say. Esperanto is a living language with grammatical and lexical norms, the same as any other living language, and it is treated as such by Wiktionary. (For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to political ideals of fina venko, and I would wager most Esperantophones today don't, but that's a bit of a digression from the current topic.) Please treat Esperanto with the same respect you would treat any other language; it's not a toy that can be arbitrarily molded according to the learner's preference. Audrey (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not mean for it to be a toy nor for "fina venko". Esperanto serves a purpose educating the world to honor not merely "respect" language. In my opinion, dishonor comes to the language when demagogues "earn respect" for linguistic evolution in Esperanto. The final purpose requires a language that does in fact live but does not in fact evolve. English already exists as a hegemonic language for that purpose. Esperanto exists to preserve history intact. Eaterjolly (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)