讯息： 19
语言: English
ceigered (显示个人资料) 2008年12月5日上午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
(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 (显示个人资料) 2008年12月5日上午11:53:30
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
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 (显示个人资料) 2008年12月5日下午3:33:52
About the spelling: that's because Ido is aimed to be more 'natural', ie more like French.
Miland (显示个人资料) 2008年12月5日下午4:08:42
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 (显示个人资料) 2008年12月6日上午6:17:38
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
