--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Logistically, I think it's more intuitive than the
> existing.  The only thing I really don't like about
> the E-o participles is the required tense markers. 
> think it would be a good idea to have something
> it's not marked for tense, but possibly still marked
> for the passive-active role.  I would think the
> infitive may be a good place to take that from like
> "donia" (giving) though I'm not sure of a good way
> to make it passive.

That could probably drop out of the language if people
stopped being pedantic over whether you used "estis
kuiranta" versus "estis kuirinta."  But it's not
really that complicated; it uses the same i/a/o
pattern as the active tenses.  And you get to use
totally confusing words like "estonteco" (future). 
But I don't think that it really needs to be redone,
when one could just stick to "ant" and "it", ignore
the pedants, and hope that it catches on.

(This is an interesting point about Esperanto; since
the preferred method of change is by use, how can one
be sure that something is a mistake and not an
attempted reform?)

I'd say that the main thing about the Esperanto verb
that needs reforming is the transitivity / valency of
verbs.  ("La akvo bolas / Mi boligas la akvon.") 
Removing this feature of the language as "proper"
grammar would affect relatively little, since you
could still insert "ig" or "igh" if you feel the need
to be clear about it.  Just kick it out and be done
with it, and the verbs would be much better.

(That and the verb "scii."  Never, ever, ever will I
like the pronunciation of that word.  And you could
get around it by expanding the semantic space of
"koni" or changing the darn thing to something

 - Wayne