In a recent review of Ronald Cecil Gates's short mystery novel Mortiga ekskurso (Fatal Excursion), reviewer Donald Broadribb of Australia asks (translation is mine):
I noticed, while reading the work, that the recent custom of using forms such as -atis, -intas, -intis etc. leads to the appearance of verb forms intentionally omitted from Esperanto by Zamenhof: the perfect, the plusquamperfect, the imperfect et al. Is this a genuine enrichment of the Esperanto verb system? I'm not sure.
Conservatives have been railing against these forms since before I learned the language. If I suspected that they would become commonly used, I'd probably rail against them myself. But it should be noted that, because of the structure of the language as defined by Zamenhof in the Unua Libro, these forms are in fact intrinsically part of the language, even if Zamenhof never found it convenient to mention them explicitly, or use them in his own works.
They can legitimately be used. They should be used sparingly.
Wow. I am currently reading "Mortiga Ekskurso" and wanted to ask about this very same issue. Googled the title of the book, and lo and behold! here you are! In retrospect, I'm not really surprised.
I'm not finished with the book, but so far the only examples I have seen of this usage are when people are speaking. As in every language, I'm sure there are people in Ronald Gates' universe who speak at different levels and styles. Perhaps he is using this style to differentiate the characters in his book? My level of comprehension is not sufficient to make any determination.
Reply to Lionel's comment.
Sparingly because they just aren't traditional. I cannot, however, see any other problem. Since the -AS form rather than the "estas -A" form is actually becoming more common for ordinary adjectives, I guess maybe the same thing will happen with participles (which are really just adjectives themselves) over the next few decades.
There is a semantic difference between, say, "kisatis" and "estis kisata" — the first is more "active" or "obtrusive" than the second — but when it comes to the participles, the difference may be considered negligible by many people.
Why sparingly if they are intrinsically part of the language? I fail to see a problem here: I guess that, depending on your mother tongue, you will be more or less inclined to use them.
(Note that, being still a beginner in Esperanto, I might fail to see many things!)
Is there any semantic difference between, say, a form ending in atis and corresponding form with estis plus participle?
Amike salutas vin.