Zamenhof's innovation of the table of correlatives (AFAIK the first one in any language) is brilliant, but I was always a little perplexed by some of the oddities in it. So I am wondering if anyone know the reasoning behind some of the choices.
The proximity marker ĉi distinguishes between "this" and "that." Since the distinction is only used with demonstratives, it appears that Esperanto has one demonstrative prefix and one modifier instead of two prefixes. That saves nothing and makes for awkward expressions like "tio kaj ĉi tio."
Since we are at ĉi, why is the universality marker ĉi-? I would think more obvious choices would be "omni-" or "tuti-". At the same time, since the question marker is ĉu, it would be easier to remember ĉi- as the question prefix.
Why on earth is the location marker -e? That's the ending for adverbs and would probably make more sense for what is now -el, modality.
Speaking of which, -el and -om are for qualities and quantities respectively, except that -el can also be used for quantities of uncountable things. Except being a word that Esperanto doesn't like in its grammar.
Also, there is nothing about the language that says that -el is related to quality, while -al to cause. It's just something one has to learn without any helpful connection to quality or cause.
These are just examples that illustrate why the correlatives give me pause, not criticism of the language or attempts to reform it. The question is, why did Zamenhof pick these prefixes and suffixes, and whether there has been historically any criticism of the choices.