ورود به محتوا
پاسخ دادن

Made a site, now what to do...

از ceigered, 2 دسامبر 2008

پست‌ها: 19

زبان: English

Polaris (نمایش مشخصات) 3 دسامبر 2008،‏ 5:30:40

Those who embrace Ido are called "Idists?" Hmmm, in Esperanto, they're called Idiotoj, aren't they?

JUST KIDDING! rideto.gif

Miland (نمایش مشخصات) 4 دسامبر 2008،‏ 0:12:40

Couturat went to Bertrand Russell, complaining that Ido had no word analogous to 'Esperantist'. 'But yes,' said Russell. 'There is the word Idiot.' Coutourat did not, however, view this suggestion favourably.

ceigered (نمایش مشخصات) 5 دسامبر 2008،‏ 10:24:40

Ah Ne! Kiun malvirton ellasis mi sur la mondo? ridulo.gif

I take it idists are like the prodigal son as far as esperantists are concerned?

Rogir (نمایش مشخصات) 5 دسامبر 2008،‏ 11:06:48

Actually, I think Ido was very good at one thing: luring all the reformists away from Esperanto so we could have a stable language.

ceigered (نمایش مشخصات) 5 دسامبر 2008،‏ 11:37:50

Rogir:Actually, I think Ido was very good at one thing: luring all the reformists away from Esperanto so we could have a stable language.
*Crap, my secret plans are about to be exposed! Quick! Hide under that watermelon!*

On the upside though, to the more confident Esperantists (who will hopefully increase in numbers steadily over the years) will be able to understand Ido easily, and confident Idists should be able to understand Esperanto, meaning everyone can be moderately happy while still being able to understand each other.

For example (from the Ido site):
Mea amiko venas a nia domo.

I'm sure we know what that means lango.gif
(Mia amiko venas al nia domo)

It might be useful for Esperantists to know some Ido if it takes off - alternatively, it might be completely useless if it doesn't.

Back to what you said tho Rogir, isn't Ido stable as well because it is based off of a 'version 2' of Esperanto made by Zamenhoff because westerners were unimpressed?

ceigered (نمایش مشخصات) 5 دسامبر 2008،‏ 11:53:30

Adding to what I said, after having another look at Ido, I've come to the conclusion that the differences between Ido and Esperanto are almost as trivial as those between Scots and English, in both pronunciation, grammar and speaker demographics.

On that note, I reckon if Ido had something as cool as Lernu it would have more speakers. However, as Rogir said, what is most important is stability. Even if Ido is much less neutral than Esperanto or has less speakers, what's most important is how stable it is. Unfortunately, Ido lacks that stability from what I've seen, and until it comes to terms with that I think Esperanto is most suitable for international communication - Ido could serve in a smaller role for hobbyists or westerners.

Sorry, this is now off topic, I just had to stand up for the little guy even if he is the prodigal son ridulo.gif

EDIT: another thing I've noticed is that Ido's spelling is more or less a bit harder, but it's trivial once again.

Rogir (نمایش مشخصات) 5 دسامبر 2008،‏ 15:33:52

The importance of stability was noted by Zamenhof very quickly, as he saw how internal strife had undermined the volapuk movement. Therefore he worked on the language for years to perfect it before he published it, and introduced the 'netuŝebla fundamento'. Those who were still unhappy mostly joined the Ido movement, thus not disrupting the Esperanto movement from within anymore. This new movement full of reformists and without proper prefinetuning of course soon fell apart once more into many 'Ididos', and thus never achieved the succes of Esperanto.

About the spelling: that's because Ido is aimed to be more 'natural', ie more like French.

Miland (نمایش مشخصات) 5 دسامبر 2008،‏ 16:08:42

ceigered:.. the differences between Ido and Esperanto are almost as trivial as those between Scots and English..
I quote Don Harlow:

The surface differences between Ido and Esperanto are relatively minor. It is often said — correctly — that a person who can read one language can read the other. But the structural differences are major. Ido, like French and English, is a language with a relatively strict word-order; Esperanto is not. Esperanto has added some extra letters to ensure that it is phonetic; Ido uses only the standard twenty-six, and is not. Esperanto has an agglutinative word-formation system that allows easy creation of new words; Ido has a complex word-derivation system that does not.

ceigered (نمایش مشخصات) 6 دسامبر 2008،‏ 6:17:38

The only thing I disagree with in that quote is the alphabet of Ido, but considering I speak English, any-thing's phonetic to me. But because Ido word building system is more or less the same as English's, and because the word order is more or less the same as English or Swedish, I guess the 'Scot's English' argument isn't quite as strong.

I do have to say though - Ido can use the same free word order provided the '-n' is used (rare), and they also don't have the same marginal sounds as Esperanto - e.g. 'hx' and the complex consonant combinations are ditched, but I see Esperanto developing similarly in that direction anyway, with 'hx' becoming 'k' and 'h' in different situations and things like 'sc' becoming 's' or 'c' or 'scx' etc.

Mmm, this gives me an Idea, maybe this kind of stuff could go on the site for those who are interested... - Of course it would be biased because it's coming from an Esperantist's point of view rido.gif

بازگشت به بالا