intelligibility of Ido and Esperanto
从 orthohawk, 2015年6月16日
讯息： 6
语言: English
orthohawk (显示个人资料) 2015年6月16日上午2:48:53
Exactly how close are Ido and Esperanto? Are they closer to each other than, say, the local German dialect in Zurich is to that of Thuringia, for example? Czech and Slovak? The mainland Scandinavian languages?
Based on the model of German, could Ido be considered a "dialect" of Esperanto, as the dialectal varieties in Switzerland are "dialects" of German?
Tempodivalse (显示个人资料) 2015年6月16日上午3:16:20
The grammatical changes are mostly superficial: -ar, -or, -ir are the infinitive endings; -i becomes the noun plural; -ez is the volitive; subject-verb agreement is lost, accusative is not used for SVO word order (but preserved for other word orders). Then there is the orthography, which you can get used to after a few minutes.
The lexicon, however, was changed a lot. The correlative table has been replaced by irregular borrowings from Latinate languages, and separate roots are preferred to affixes+roots (the equivalent of mal- in particular is rarely used). Some of the existing roots have also been changed, though usually not beyond recognisability.
I would say the level of similarity is somewhat lower than between Swedish/Norwegian/Danish. A better comparison might be Dutch/Afrikaans, or maybe Russian/Belarussian.
erinja (显示个人资料) 2015年6月16日下午1:39:56
Rujo (显示个人资料) 2015年6月16日下午5:35:51
Tempodivalse:The non using of the accusative is no advantage of IDO. In Esperanto we can also avoid this one, depending on the circumstances. Zamenhof has said pri la akuzativo, in Lingvaj Respondoj: "Tuŝante la akuzativon mi povas al vi doni la jenan konsilon: uzu ĝin ĉiam nur en tiuj okazoj, kie vi vidas ke ĝi estas efektive necesa; en ĉiuj aliaj okazoj, kie vi ne scias, ĉu oni devas uzi la akuzativon aŭ la nominativon - uzu ĉiam la nominativon. La akuzativo estas enkondukita nur el neceso, ĉar sen ĝi la senco ofte estus ne klara; sed ĝia uzado en okazo de nebezono pli multe malbeligas la lingvon ol la neŭzado en okazo de bezono." (La Esperantisto, 1980, p. 27).
The grammatical changes are mostly superficial: -ar, -or, -ir are the infinitive endings; -i becomes the noun plural; -ez is the volitive; subject-verb agreement is lost, accusative is not used for SVO word order (but preserved for other word orders). Then there is the orthography, which you can get used to after a few minutes.
Tempodivalse (显示个人资料) 2015年6月16日下午6:06:47
Rujo:I think you've taken this quote is taken a bit out of context.
The non using of the accusative is no advantage of IDO. In Esperanto we can also avoid this one, depending on the circumstances. Zamenhof has said pri la akuzativo, in Lingvaj Respondoj: "Tuŝante la akuzativon mi povas al vi doni la jenan konsilon: uzu ĝin ĉiam nur en tiuj okazoj, kie vi vidas ke ĝi estas efektive necesa; en ĉiuj aliaj okazoj, kie vi ne scias, ĉu oni devas uzi la akuzativon aŭ la nominativon - uzu ĉiam la nominativon. La akuzativo estas enkondukita nur el neceso, ĉar sen ĝi la senco ofte estus ne klara; sed ĝia uzado en okazo de nebezono pli multe malbeligas la lingvon ol la neŭzado en okazo de bezono." (La Esperantisto, 1980, p. 27).
My understanding is that Z is giving advice to a beginner who hasn't yet mastered the accusative: if it doesn't seem obvious that you should use an accusative (i.e., not a direct object, no directionality), then it will be, more often than not, unnecessary.
However, this doesn't have anything to do with SVO word order. If you want to indicate a direct object, you need to use the accusative even in SVO (or some other oblique case where the meaning wouldn't change, as in the case of Mi helpis al li).
Ido is different in that it expressly allows dropping the accusative with SVO word order. To me, this introduces an unnecessary level of complexity into the language - why not just use the accusative everywhere, or remove it altogether, instead of creating a new set of rules where it can be dropped?