Hey,you know something?.if you think about it the same problem between

interlingue and interlingua we have in front of our eyes.it's name? IDO.

I mean this is according to esperanto scholars;this the real esperanto

but,wait a second mi parolas esperanto jam kaj nun ili diras ke mi havas

aliigxi multaj vortaroj cxar nun ne estas bone. can you tell me what way

should i take? old-zamenhof -school or where-these-guys -come-from-new-school?

what do you think?.

P.S why these guys don't try to change klingon? i wish i can have a phaser

It sounds to me like you're trying to decide which route to take between Esperanto and Ido.  Well, my take is that they both have their purpose, and there is certainly no objection to one choosing to learn both if one so chose.  the following might be some advantages and disadvantages for both, based on my knowledge of Esperanto and limited knowledge about Ido.

Esperanto...

Very much an a priori language, which is ideal to ensure anyone can learn it with at least moderate ease, no matter what their native language is.  Its influence from a wide range of European, as well as Hebrew, languages also contirbute to making it easier to learn for a wider range of Europeans. Its more complex grammar can be an advantage (the accusative makes communication clearer, less ambiguous, and thus less likely to lead to miscommunication between people of different cultures who might see things differently) or a disadvantage (one must always remember the accusative).  The fundamento likewise can be an advantage (it stabilizes the language so that one can read Esperanto literature written over one hundred years ago and also know that ones children, if they should learn Esperanto, will likewise be able to benefit from such stability) or a disadvantage (provides more limitations on how much the language can evolve and possibly improve itself).  Another advantage with the Esperanto community is that it concerns itself less with which language ought to become the universal language, and more with the simple idea that we need one, thus making it more attractive to a wider range of people who don't want to have to commit to a particular lanuguage per se, but would rather focus on the simple need for such a language, Esperanto being the grand experiment, if you will, which is proving that such an idea is well within the reach of human attainment, in that it now already has its own literature, movies, music, industry, business, some official recognition, etc.

 

Ido...

Still quite a priori, but slightly less so than Esperanto, and based primarily on Latin and Greek roots.  The advantage is that if your native language is of Latin or Greek origin, then you might be able to learn it more easily than you could Esperanto.  The opposite would hold true, mind you, if your native language doesn't fall in such a category.  The simplification of the grammar could make the grammar easier to learn likewise, but also reduces the efficiency with which clearness can be expressed in cases of ambiguity between the subject and object in more complex sentences.   Another advantage with Ido is that by having abandonned the Fundamento, it's effectively made itself free for wide-ranging improvements.  This same advantage can be a disadvantage, however, in that it also creates a culture more willing to make wider-ranging changes, thus reducing the language's long-term stability in that its members, more concerned with language improvement rather than the more general idea of promoting  a universal language, are more likely to create or join other offshoots, such as 'fasile, U-lango, Mond-lango, etc.  Add to that that Ido's limited literatur and community don't lend themselves well to convincing the world that a universal auxiliary language could work.

 

In conclusion...

I'd say that while Ido may or may not be an improvement over Esperanto (that's open for debate, although my personal bias is more in favour of a priori constructions so as to make it easier to learn for a wider range of people, and not only for a particular group), Esperanto is certainly the best option for promoting the idea of a universal language, Ido possibly being useful in giving one some ideas for any future world language which could possibly come into being.

Based on my view point, I'd argue therefore that while learning Esperanto could be useful for anyone, Ido could be useful as a second planned language to learn for those who've got the time to learn it.

Esperanto is, perhaps fortunately, more alone than its competitors would have you think. Interligua and Ido (or for that matter Lojban and Klingon) have very, very few speakers. Esperanto is several orders of magnitude larger. Latin has some adherents as an international language, they even have congresses and radio broadcasts (from the vatican), but even they have not as much activity as esperanto, not counting the catholic clergy, who do use it for letters and the occasional meeting.

I don't think we should say that "Esperanto serves the inner idea, the others serve perfection". Not all esperantists care much for the inner idea, and the con-lang crowd's exercises are a far way off from perfection. I don't think learning any of their languages is worth it - they'll change it before you get any skill at all, and the probably won't even take the time to get fluent in their own creations, if past conlangs are any measure.

Learning Esperanto, I mean REALLY learning to speak it, so good that you could write say the above text, in the same time I used to do it, without a dictionary, that is hard enough. I study esperanto because I want to get that fluent in a third language without spending the ridiculous amounts of time I did on english.

 

Friends,

The discussion is nice. But...

I think discussion about another "international language" is not necessary. It takes over a century for any such planned language to be known around the world. Just imagine how many more years will it take to make majority of all people learn it. I know making all the world population learn it is just impossible. Just imaging we have to work on the ground on which Zamenhof himslef worked in 1887 for new "international laguage" we will be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar behind the time.

Instead of finding  faults wtih Esperanto and creating new lanaguage ( I read about couple of such new crazy inventions on the net), we have to concentrate on making Epseranto more popular among non-Espeantists.

All the best fro the "batalo".

Razen from Nepal

(razeno@gmail.com)

I've looked at an Ido website. One advantage over Esperanto I see is in political correctness, the -ino suffix in E. On the other hand, this has the disadvantage of having to learn two suffixes instead of one.

I think Klingon and Vulcan words could be incorporated in Esperanto if needed

(batlaĥo, ponfaro).

regarding Latin, i don't think it can be reaccepted as a universal language, owing to its association with the Catholic Church.  Mind you, i'm a Catholic.  In Church we sometimes still use Latin is services but not in everyday communications.  One problem against Latin is its association with Catholicism and the past.  I do believe that there will be many sectors around the world would definitely be against Latin simply because of its association with Catholicism.  Thats why, perhaps, Zamenhof thought of Esperanto.  That is, he envisioned a universal language that is deviod of any bias either culturally, linguistically, or religiously.  Honestly, i think Esperanto has still a long way to perfect itself. But it would be of no help if we keep on devising new languages everytime a pitfall is encountered

Saluton mik0s,

I can partly agree with your opinion concerning the possible association between latin and the catholic church. But this opinion may be a non european one. As a French, the latin inheritance in our culture is quite great, and latin is primarily associated with the roman empire, essentially in its period before the birth of Jesus-Christ, or when the early Church was not still official. So, I would rather associate latin with the roman literature and especially with the roman philosophers and writers. And from this point of view, latin is a much more "universal" language. We also mustn't forget that latin was the universal scientific language in Europe from the end of the Middle Ages till the early 19th century, and sometimes even later.

This is just to say that latin could still be a universal language. However, I wouldn't support it because of its beautiful complexity. I really enjoyed learning a little bit of latin, and this was useful to better understand my own language (french). But as Zamenhof thought it, only an easy learning language can pretend to become a universal one. Because to really help mankind to communicate, it is unrealistic to ask people learn such a language during several years before being able to use it correctly.

And from this point of view, english can not really be a universal language. Neither can french !

Ĝis.

I just want to make you notice that when you mention Klingon you should also mention Tolkiens languages:

Quenya, Sindarin and the others (see http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/)

yeah, yeah... 

ĝis Virre