When I was in Scotland, immediately following a six month stay in Norway visiting family and playing tourist, I could understand almost everything the Scots said. I couldna speak back a' th'm. but if I let my brain free associate the Scottish words I could follow conversations that an Ootlander, like me, shouldna ha'e.
"aus" (German) = "out" (English) = "oot" (Lowland Scots) The combination of the ideas "out" and "land" to mean "abroad" is common to Germanic languages except English (blame the Normans). And if you know what you're looking for, "aus", "out" and "oot" are quite similar. In fact, the original pronunciation of "out" was "oot" – but that's a long story.
Though the usage of "ootlander" was probably reinforced by the Scandinavian occupants of Scotland during medieval times.
Only, if you live on an island without internal state border. That is for example not on Ireland (Republic of Ireland/UK), New Guinea (Indonesia/Papua New Guinea), St. Martin (Netherlands/France), Borneo (Brunei/Malaysia/Indonesia) , Hispaniola (Haiti/Dominican Republic), Usedom (Germany/Poland), etc.
If only English worked logically...In a perfect world:
Going from New York City to Paris is both going abroad and going overseas. Going from Berlin to Paris is going abroad but not going overseas. Going from Cayenne to Paris is going overseas but not abroad (since French Guiana is a department of France).
However, since so many people use overseas to mean abroad, we must concede that it has picked up a new meaning...so going from Budapest to Bratislava can be "going overseas" even though Hungary and Slovakia are landlocked countries right next to each other. Sigh...
But, going purely by dictionary entries, transmara is still only for situations where there is an actual sea involved.
"tiuj" is so hard to pronounce... I'm surprised that plural agreement in adjectives hasn't disappeared, seeing as it adds no meaning or clears up ambiguity. The only time plural agreement could conceivably be useful is in lists: "felichaj kato kaj hundo" vs. "felicha kato kaj hundo", but this is ruined by the fact "felichaj katoj kaj hundoj" is ambiguous...
Just for the record, I'm not saying Esperanto should be changed, I am merely expressing amazement at that plural agreement is still a thing.
Remarkably, the adjective agreeing with the noun(s) in number is one of the basic rules laid down by Zamenhof. And speaking as a long time student of this language I used to also get my tongue tied over certain words (I spent what seemed like months trying to get kuirejo correct) but have seen how clear the plural adjective can make it when trying to understand which words relate to others in a sentence. This is especially the case when the writer/speaker did not learn Esperanto from English, but maybe from German or Korean where grammar is different and they, still thinking in their native languages, may write a sentence like "La bebo miajn urson kaj bieron manĝis." Or something even more spectacularly not phrased in an English manner.
The rule exists for clarity, and most of the time it is perfectly clear what is meant. It has been with the language from the beginning, and will probably still be with the language when the final Esperanto book falls into the sun.
I did say:
The only time plural agreement could conceivably be useful is in lists: "felichaj kato kaj hundo" vs. "felicha katoj kaj hundo".
I accept that it is useful in lists, which is essentially what its use in your example was, but that you must agree with plural nouns that are one word detracts from this usefulness. As I said before:
...but this is ruined by the fact "felichaj katoj kaj hundoj" is ambiguous...
Because it could be that just the cats are happy or both the dogs and cats are happy. I didn't really mean it should disappear entirely, just that it should only apply for referencing multiple words (in lists where it is ambigious) rather than multiple things.
(I had to edit this comment because my formatting messed up) (And I wanted to make it clearer)
The answer to that is often to place the unhappy dogs into the list before the happy cats; Hundoj kaj feliĉaj katoj. But I don't see how changing the ways adjectives are handled can otherwise solve this dilemma. Zamenhof asks that we try to keep the adjective as close to the noun it modifies as possible. But, if you speak much English at all (and by all signs you do so, and well) you know that ambiguity exists in English also. Heck, some of my favorite jokes are based on the natural ambiguity of the language.
As one Duo participant once said, elsewhere in this fora, If it's clear, it's right. If you have any questions about the clarity and you can edit the sentence, then do so until it is clear.
One thing I've noticed about Esperantists when they are speaking their native language, is that they tend to be clearer and more precise with their word choice than the society at large. I suspect that you've partly discovered why.
Or you could do Katoj feliĉaj kaj hundoj if you want to keep the order for whatever reason...
Actually, now it doesn't seem so surprising that we still have plural adjective agreement rather than, um, multiple-word adjective agreement? (i.e. the system I described; I'm not sure what its name is, if it has one), because, based on your comments, the only reason something would change in Esperanto is if it was getting in the way of clarity or was otherwise frequently problematic, and because, as we know from English , ambiguity can be avoided by changing word order.
Though that makes me wonder, you can change the position of mia(j)(n), via(j)(n) etc. can't you? Because otherwise I suppose you couldn't clear up ambiguity in the sentence "La bebo miajn ursojn kaj bieron manĝis." by doing "La bebo ursojn miajn kaj bieron manĝis." (if that's what you meant of course, otherwise you could just say "La bebo miajn ursojn kaj mian bierojn") Not that it matters though, seeing as, like you demonstrated, the word order can just be fiddled about with to achieve clarity....
Also, sorry to bug you any more, but two things:
Firstly, "La bebo miajn urson kaj bieron manĝis.", seems like an odd sentence...is it a Duo sentence? It seems to ring a bell...
Secondly, and triple sorry about this, when you said "elsewhere in this fora", shouldn't it be "elsewhere in these fora" or "elsewhere in this forum"? See, adjective agreement; it's annoying ;)