Talk:Esperanto and Ido compared

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Constructed languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about constructed languages, aka conlangs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

If listing this article for deletion or if there is an active edit war, please post a note here.
Constructed languages
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Esperanto task force.
This article is an Esperanto core topic.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-17. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Okay, this is the first bit of the article. Not sure if the url for the Fundamento is the best one so replace as you all see fit. 211.240.138.197 11:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Finances

Anybody have any concrete numbers for the total amount of donations, purchases and whatnot for the Esperanto community? For Ido it's quite easy because it's almost nothing. There's the yearly conference plus some books and dictionaries that can be bought, and the rest is all available on-line for free. I always read about rich people from Hungary, Brazil and Japan pitching in for Esperanto though. Also how many people actually make a living just working for Espo? That would be interesting to add. Mithridates 11:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] optional affixes

Mithradates, if spozulo is optionally spozo, doesn't that destroy the morphological argument for Ido? How can the part of speech of the root be transparent if it can be used as either a noun or a verb without a suffix, like the Esperanto example of krono/kroni? Just curious. kwami 19:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

spozo by itself does just mean "spouse" but I don't think there are any derivations from that, except for awkward ones like spozigar which probably sounds about as good as "spousify" for marriage, which is just mariajar in Ido. Is that what you meant? The word spozo by itself just signifies a person one is married to, male or female, and the addition of -ul- makes it clear that we're referring to a man. Mithridates 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I'd forgotten -ulo was the masculin suffix. kwami 09:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I have started a history section, which at the moment seems very biased towards Esperanto, but this is not actually the case. I am trying to write a section which will present, not just a history of the two languages, but also a history of the two movements' relationship to one another. Honestly, I cannot find much reference material which isn't biased. The Esperantists feel betrayed by the evil Idists, and the Idists all seem to be martyrs of the cause of a better language. I know truth usually lies inbetween. I simply want to present how each side feels about the other. Perhaps there should be a seperate section on the movements' relationship? Thoughts anyway. And please feel free to add or edit. Jon 04:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Stressed syllables

-- One change that Ido made is the stressed syllable of words. In Esperanto, it's easy and perfectly predictable where the stress is. In Ido, it's not as easy: usually it's on the penultimate syllable, but if the word ends with r it's on the last syllable, and the vowels i and u can function as semivowels in some cases (ex.: radio, defeating the purpose of dedicated semivowels y and w). I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the article, but i'm not sure about the wording.--Yuu en 20:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Would the stress rule be "last vowel before the last consonant"? kwami 23:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

-- It seemed a perfecte rule to me until i found this (under "stress", or search for "rendévuo"): http://donh.best.vwh.net/Languages/ido.html --Yuu en 04:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe whenever there's another vowel available, -CiV and -CuV are counted as one final syllable and so don't take stress? Omnadía might be an exception because it's a compound, and the word dia would have to be stressed on the i. Muzéo would be regular, because it's only the high vowels /i/ and /u/ that are spelled the same as the semivowels /j/ and /w/. (But egóismo doesn't seem to follow the compound idea.) kwami 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

-- OK, i found another reference: http://ido.narod.ru/linguo/kgd/acento-tonika.htm . It seems to be detailed and complete (talks about compounds and the exceptions for week days), but it's in Ido itself (i only know Esperanto), so i don't understand some parts. I must say that i love ( :-) ) regular spellings, and i see those rules as unnecessary complications for an international language (that was supposed to correct the problems of another!). I think the creators of Ido didn't like y and w much, since they use i and u as semivowels very ofen ;-) --Yuu en 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that in final -ia, -ua etc. the i and u are not semivowels, but separate vowels/syllables, and that the stress in such words is antepenultimate. Or, perhaps we could describe them as divocalic diphthongs (many languages do this: vowels retain their separate identities, but don't each constitute a separate syllable). The days of the week are not exceptions, since they're not compounds. (Espo also has many inherited compounds that aren't true compounds in Espo.)
Personally, I don't have a problem with moderately complex stress assignment. Because it's reinforced with every word you hear or say, it quickly becomes second nature. kwami 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unasenceso

-- I think that an important point in Ido is its "unasenceso" (one-sensedness) principle. Every Ido root has one meaning, while some Esperanto roots actually have two close meanings: verbal and non-verbal. For instance, adolesko (a teenager) - adoleski (to grow up), aero (air) - aeri (to pump), aviado (aviation) - aviadi (to fly a plane). Some verb-noun pairs are modelled after English or other languages, e.g. akvo (water) - akvi (to water), almozo (alm) - almozi (to beg for alms) (and that's only a fraction of examples starting with A). Even more disturbing, some compound words are permitted to have a fixed meaning: lernejo (school) literally means only a place to learn. This is something that can never happen in Ido.

Do these these issues deserve mentioning on the page? And what do Esperantists think of them? Alih 12:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it. Those claims may be made, but they're not possible in human language. The only way Ido could maintain this level of perfect regularity would be if it were never spoken. As soon as you get a speaking community, people will start using words idiosyncratically. Granted, I don't know Ido, so perhaps it is the one exception to all other language, but I've heard that the forced regularity of Ido on the surface level only serves to push its irregularities in deeper, where they aren't noticed by the novice, but where in the end they cause the same difficulties as the irregularities of Espo. kwami 18:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internationality

The chart makes it look like Ido is more international because its more Latin-like, whereas Eo has words from Germanic and Slavic languages, so it seems that Eo is more international to me.Cameron Nedland 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Internationality isn't supposed to mean the number of languages that supply some token cognates, which doesn't buy a speaker of any of them much, but rather how widespread all the chosen cognates are. -- Dissident (Talk) 04:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well alrighty then.Cameron Nedland 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Then Esperanto could be less International (yet to be probed, though, as still there is not a clear countable relationship between "simmilarity of words", "number of languages the auxiliary languague is simmilar to" and "how widespread each one of those languages is") but Esperanto is then undoubtely more neutral, as neutrality is supposed to mean, as in Esperanto article is mentioned: "a truly neutral language would draw its vocabulary from a much wider variety of languages, so as not to give unfair advantage to speakers of any of them". So please do not delete the statement about neutrality I wrote, I think that this comparing article is not neutral and claims the advantages of Ido without thinking of the advantages of Esperanto. --80.174.65.68 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it is interesting how "internationality" is mentioned here as something more important than neutrality but in Ido and Interlingua compared article, internationality is not mentioned at all, but neutrality in the other hand is mentioned as the main difference! ...I wrote a sentence about neutrality here and got deleted because it was not a valid POV? I think that the general information here is far too much ido-ist. The constatable (just look at the dictionary) consideration I wrote about the number of roots in both languages (Esperanto vs Ido) got also deleted... Personally, if I wanted a neutral and schematical lenguage I'd go for Esperanto, and if I wanted an international language, I'd go for interlingua. Ido does not do that well for both ways, 80.174.65.68 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That's nice, but the article should not be "Esperanto vs. Ido" but rather one that simply lists the differences between the two. Mithridates 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Then please explain why that "internationality" concept is a difference between the two languages, and neutrality and number of roots is not.
Also.. I don't see your point. You deleted my sentence about neutrality by saying "That's still debatable. Ido is more international." Did my sentence say that it wasn't? this is not an Ido vs. Esperanto fight, I'm not Esperantist but I think this article does not take all the facts into consideration. Also a higher number of roots, being them also romance-like makes it less neutral, that's one of the reasons it is an important fact. --80.174.65.68 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say Ido was more international. I said some might make that argument, and both would be equally POV. Mithridates 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
.The entire "Internationality" section would be a POV then. If that section is kept, and since "internationality" and "neutrality" are antagonical concepts in the way this article understands it, I don't see why there is no place for the explanation about this duality. 80.174.65.68 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the word internationality just invites POV. Since that section has to do with vocabulary as well, we can just remove the 'internationality' title. I agree that these "IAL x and IAL b compared" articles are all pretty bad. I don't even think they're necessary. Mithridates 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I reworded it and removed 'internationality' as a section. How's it look now? Mithridates 14:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That's better, thanks. I'd also change the "more "international" or "corrected" roots" sentence into "more "romancish"" or something like that...hmm.. I'm not english speaker, don't know if there is a more precise word... 80.174.65.68 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the word international there is okay because it's in quotes and preceded by "the creators of Ido felt" - the creators did say that they were making a more "international" language, so as a quote it's accurate. Without the quotes or the statement that it was simply their view it would be a POV statement, yes. Mithridates 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart

Somone made the chart where you can't read the Ido and Esperanto. I don't know how to fix it.Cameron Nedland 13:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)