Talk:Ido

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ido article.
Article policies
Featured article star Ido is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2005.
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
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the class scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Esperanto task force.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

I've heard significantly different story about Ido from Esperantists. --Taw

I think the links were better embedded into the material rather than being listed at the end. Is there a Wikipedia policy on this? --Chuck Smith

Agreement of adjectives and the accusative ending were not simply eliminated as redundant, they were traded for free word order. If you have free word order, you need markers to tell what function each word has in the sentence. Once you impose a rigid word order (as in modern English), then these markers become redundant. Also, I would add that, in constrast to Esperanto-speakers who "attack" Ido, there are Esperanto-speakers who prefer Ido but would rather stick with the momentum and support Esperanto as an international language. -- Quark

Contents

[edit] Russian words in Cyrillic?

Hi everyone. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this - I'm kind of new to editing, I've only done it a couple times. I was just reading this article, and noticed that the Russian words are transcribed into latin characters. While they still represent Russian words in such a form, I would be more than willing to write the correct Russian words in the Cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps I could have both to aid non-Russian speakers in understanding the pronunciations. What do you think? Unless someone gives me a good reason not to, I think I'd like to add it to help Russian speakers (native or not) better understand the phonetic similarities and differences in Ido. Bill Lava (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Maybe put the Cyrillic in parenthesis right next to the Latin transcriptions. Mithridates (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On this same note, one of the words in the Russian column seemed a bit odd to me. "Kobyla" is supposed to be the Russian word for horse. I lived in Russia (I am an American) for two years and spoke and read Russian every day. I never came across this word as far as I can recall. I looked it up in a dictionary and a closer translation would be mare, but as far as I can tell, Russians uniformly prefer the word "loshad" for horse. I can see how "kobyla" matches up more closely with the Ido root, but is it necessary to make it seem like there is some connection there, when it isn't even with the word that Russians actually use? Bill Lava (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, "kobyla" is the Polish word for mare. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ido statistics

From the statistics page:

"There have been a total of 2 page views, and 38,669 page edits since the wiki was setup. That comes to 2.39 average edits per page, and 0.00 views per edit."

That's obviously REALLY wrong, anyone else get these stats?

Yeah, I've noticed it since April. I probably should have checked, what with being a sysop over there but I never really cared enough to bother. Heh. Mithridates 10:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resistance to language change

Did Zamenhof really reject changes to Esperanto? I had read that he preferred to let the Esperanto community decide on changes. It was a biased source, though. cprompt

To my knowledge, you are correct. The community saw that most of the reforms made the language more European and less international. Every change has its advantages and disadvantages, so they decided to reject them. I tried to edit the article, but then decided not to because I can't do it NPOV... if you could edit it accordingly, I would appreciate it. --Chuck SMITH

I'll give it a try. --cprompt

[edit] Professionalism

much more about Ido grammar can be explained here, such as pronouns, affixes, references to the history of the language looks sloppy in the article itself. Such a comment should be posted on this very talk page.

I commented it out. The part that really still needs to be done is explaining the affix system and how it differs from that of Esperanto --Jim Henry 20:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Describe Ido in itself or by contrast with Esperanto?

I recently wrote some more material on Ido's grammar and phonology, continuing the earlier trend of noting contrasts with Esperanto. Not sure if we should keep doing that or switch to describing Ido in itself and relegate the comparisons to another section or even a separate article. But since Ido started as an Esperanto reform project, embedding the comparison in each linguistic section seems to make sense. --Jim Henry 20:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a separate page to compare Ido and Esperanto. Then here Ido could be described in isolation.MarSch 17:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Io can be considered Eo 2.0 if looked at properly. This should be at least a small blurb somewhere in the intro paragraph here. Additionally, a comparison wiki could eventually lead to something better for the Io community. Phil.andy.graves 02:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ido interrogatives

I would like to know about interrogatives/correlatives in Ido. Is it as regular as that of Esperanto (see Esperanto_grammar for a nice table of all 45)? Could this table be added please?MarSch 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a handy chart: [1]. A somewhat abbreviated chart can be seen further down at: [2]. In brief, it seems to me that the Ido correlatives are less regular than the Esperanto correlatives, in an effort to be more "natural". IMO, that means that the Ido correlatives are more difficult to learn for the sake of a greater resemblance to the romance languages. UitvlugtDJ@yahoo.com

[edit] qu, gu vs. kv, gv

There is no phonological change here, but rather an orthographic one, so I moved where this was covered. Since many of the world's people do not distinguish IPA [v] and [w], in many cases there isn't even a phonetic difference between Ido qu, gu and Esperanto kv, gv (though to an English speaker, of course, they seem completely different). kwami 21:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

Interesting that the number of people seems to have declined, almost a little surprising considering the general rise in interest in international communication, as well as the rising world population and increased ability in learning and transport--you'd predict a rise in interest (as well as such measures as attendance at the international conference) rather than a fall. ~ Dpr 04:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the conferences? They're not a fair representative of the actual speaking population, which has gone up. I've noticed the largest growth since the Ido Wikipedia was made, exactly one year ago. Ido's biggest problem before was not having a centralized area that was guaranteed to stay around for the next few years.

Mithridates

What evidence is the estimate of 2500-6000 speakers (recently revised from 250-5000) based on? Can anyone provide a cite similar to the cites discussing different means of estimating the number of speakers of Esperanto? --Jim Henry | Talk 20:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
That's weird and I noticed it too. It's hard to say because I know a number of Esperantists will not admit to knowing or having studied Ido. I would place the number of supporters that happen to know the language at 1000. People who know Esperanto and decided to learn Ido grammar as well probably number a few times more than that, but it's not likely that their vocabulary use would always be correct if they haven't actually used it all that much.

I am of the opinion that the best way to gauge the number of speakers would be through the creation of a spider that could go through the web, calculating the total amount of material in all three languages (Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua). That would include old newsgroup postings, Wikipedia, personal home pages, everything. Then at least we could have a relative idea. I used a few search engines last month to see the relative numbers of pages with words that only appear in each language and it looked like Esperanto pages outnumbered Ido ones by anywhere from 12 to 50 times, and sometimes more.

I disagree with this calculation for a general speaking populous. I would much prefer some type of test be performed to determine how well someone knows Io. After it's done, either disperse it to various groups, or put it in a well lit place. If it's designed properly, you can get much more accurate info. Unfortunately, you have bias against Io so it'll be hard to get a fair figure as of right now. Phil.andy.graves 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ido template

Template:Ido has been created from the Esperanto one - it needs to be pruned somewhat but afterwards it could be put on the bottom of every page.

[edit] Sex vs. Gender, and the Epicene

  • Many people nowadays say gender when they mean sex. This can be very confusing in linguistic discussions, and as things evolved, it became even more confusing on this page. In the comparison of Esperanto and Ido, somebody had written that Ido, unlike Esperanto, does not assume the male gender as the default for family relationship words, with male gender being a link to a Wikipedia page about Male_gender. Well, that page now redirects to Grammatical_gender, implying that Esperanto has grammatical gender. Completely wrong, you see? So I changed that male gender to male sex. Ailanto 20:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, the epicene pronoun in English is he. That's precisely why English epicene is a problem for some people. Admittedly it's ambiguous, and it may be hard to wrap your mind around the concept that there are two different hes in English, one masculine and one epicene, but there it is, that's how English evolved. Somewhat similarly, Esperanto has the epicene ĝi, but it's hard for speakers of some languages to apply the word to humans because of native language notions of it. But ĝi is Esperanto's epicene pronoun, and tiu is frequently used in its place... and li/ŝi is rarely seen in Esperantio. Ailanto 13:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The description of Ido's epicene pronoun lu is a little misleading: it is not a gender-neutral pronoun used to describe animate nouns, nor is olu used only for inanimate objects. The Kompleta Gramatiko Detaloza says that olu is for "things, and also for entities of indeterminate gender: babies, children, people, youths, seniors, persons, individuals, horses, cows, cats, etc." Lu, on the other hand, is used "for all three genders", including "people, animals, things". Which is certainly peculiar, since a pronoun that can mean just about anything is not especially useful. But thus spake the Marquis de Beaufront. Morfran November 24, 2005
    • Pronouns typically refer to a noun recently mentioned or to one implied. It often isn't necessary to make he/she/it distinctions because it is clear which noun is referred to. To feel the need always to specify such distinctons is dependent on language background.Nov ialiste 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is/is not a reformed version of Esperanto?

81.91.150.9 changed the first sentence to read "is not a reformed version of .... Esperanto". I'm going to revert that; if 81.91.150.9 wants to offer arguments on the talk page here about why that "not" is justified, go ahead. --Jim Henry | Talk 23:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmm... reform implies improvement, so maybe 81.91.150.9 doesn't think it's an improvement, or thinks that an inappropriately subjective term, or something along those lines. We auxlangers are accustomed to hearing Ido called "reformed Esperanto" (whether we agree or not!), but maybe alternative or modified would be more appropriate here? Ailanto 15:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
One may not agree with a reform, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one. An "alternative" to Eo would be Interlingua, or English. A "modified" Eo is Riismo. Ido was designed as an "improved" reformating of Eo, and that makes it a reform. kwami 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goodbye one or two unnecessary features, hello another

So they decided to do away with a handful of pointless features, like adjective-noun agreement and the need for pronouns to be gender-specific. And they brought back another pointless feature: T-V distinction. Does anybody have any idea why? -- Smjg 09:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Well... Ido was created by some French guys. They replaced much of the Germanic and Slavic vocabulary, a relatively small part of the vocabulary anyway, with Romance equivalents (IMHO, their biggest mistake. They might have attracted more Esperantists with the alternate grammar... but un/learn a bunch of vocabulary too? No way!), they made the grammar more French... they probably just thought T-V was necessary in a civilized language. (Actually, Esperanto's ci never disappeared. It just isn't used much.) Ailanto 15:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Not true: http://members.aol.com/idolinguo/idoesp.html shows most of the changes and there are a number of examples where the Esperanto word is based on the French but has been changed in Ido. The first one that comes to mind is gazolin.o -- benzino. Also, t-v is likely because there are very few languages on the Earth that don't make the distinction, and even English did until fairly recently. It certainly isn't a burden to the student. The necessity to remember whether someone is tu or vu is something to keep in mind when speaking, but to try to present it as a linguistic hurdle is false. 211.202.17.124 00:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And how common are grammatical gender, subject-verb agreement and adjective-noun agreement in comparison? French has all of these, so why single out T-V distinction as the pointless feature to have? And why not balance the language by putting the distinction in the first and third person pronouns as well? And it certainly is a linguistic hurdle to those who aren't used to it - sometimes it isn't easy to draw the line, and I'd be surprised anyway if all T-V languages and associated cultures draw it in the same place. Even the singular/plural "you" distinction is open to interpretation - if you're writing a manual or presenting a TV show, do you address each or all of your readers/viewers? -- Smjg 09:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
That must be your English-bias speaking. Many other languages have single/plural distinction for second person. Manuals are hardly the only place to decide whether this is useful. If you don't want to make a difference between familiar and formal adress(sp) then just always say "tu" (or "vu") and ignore the other. This is what happened in English with thou/you. You are right that the distinction is highly culture-dependend, but in some cultures it is also crucial. Japan comes to mind. --MarSch 12:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Smjg: Every point you've made above has to do with the use of the language, not the learning of it. You brought up the point of someone who might wonder when to use one or the other: what you've failed to notice is that this person is wondering which one to use precisely because he/she has already learned it. Easy to learn is not the same as having a clear standard of use. You will never find a person spending more than an extra minute to learn the two ways of saying you compared to if there was just one. There are valid points that can be made against Ido, but IMO the t/v one is not one of them. T/V is also interesting in that it shows a person's personality based on which one they use. Same in Japan - I know a girl from Osaka who is in her 20s but for some reason will never use informal language and will never use a dialect, that's just the way she is. 211.202.17.124 13:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanto template

Why was the {{Esperanto}} template removed? The template is for all Esperanto topics, and Ido is an Esperanto topic! Yes, there is a new Ido template (very incomplete, and a copy of the old Esperanto template), but Ido is also linked to Esperanto, and thus qualifies as a topic of it. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still not convinced. Ido may not be a branch, but it is definately related. Ido is descended of Esperanto (As its name means!) That's like saying French is not a Romance-language topic because it is not the same as Latin! Do as you like, but without Esperanto, there would be no Ido, it's just history, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I would have no problem including this information on the Esperanto page. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 15:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I am completely convinced that the {{Esperanto}} template should not be on the main Ido page. That should be the job of an {{Esperantido}} template, since that's exactly what type of language Ido is. I think what you are really implying is that wherever the word Ido is mentioned, Esperanto should get equal exposure. This is completely unfair to the Ido project, especially when Esperanto is already mentioned on the page in several places. Another thing, why was the Esperanto template put on the main Ido page without being discussed here first? Something smells a bit fishy, and it isn't me. Phil.andy.graves 16:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I simply added the {{Esperanto}} template to all pages that were on the template. Thus, Ido is linked from every article {{Esperanto}} is on (currently approximately 57 pages). I don't think it would be unfair to {{Ido}} on the Esperanto page. Again, Esperanto is part of Ido's history. I have nothing against Ido...in fact I find studying the differences between the two fascinating. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 18:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is with the largely unrelated template on the Ido page. The assumption is that most users will be here to learn about Ido the language, not a group of Esperanto-related topics. Like I said, try putting an Ethiopia template on the Eritrea page and see how that goes over. Same thing. 211.37.78.63 18:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I solved the issue with the {{Esperanto}} template. If anyone wants to whine about it now, take a look at the {{Ido}} template and glance over it. Thanks for the idea! Phil.andy.graves 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] familiar second person singular pronoun

Esperanto has ci. Rarely used nowadays perhaps, but it exists, so please leave it in the table. (I suspect that it would be used just as much, or just as little, as Ido's familiar form. It's a user issue, not a language issue.) Ailanto 14:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Weird, never knew that. The 'tu' in Ido is used all the time though - maybe we should make a note on the usage of ci? Every text I looked at until now stated that there was only one form, it might be good to know what percentile of Esperanto textbooks mention that it has a familiar form. I had never seen it until you put it on the chart. Mithridates 15:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
And I suppose that makes the entire discussion above (...hello another) completely meaningless. Interesting. Mithridates 15:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Google will give us the answer.
  • vu ne esas: 16
  • tu ne esas: 13
  • vi ne estas: 15 900
  • ci ne estas: 61
That's a huge difference. I think I'm going to have to mention that almost no-one uses this anymore. Mithridates 15:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Very true. Cause or effect, I don't know, but most Esperanto textbooks do tend to de-emphasize ci... if they mention it at all, right after mentioning it they say that it's rarely used, so I suppose that tends to make people rarely use it even more (less? hehehe). But I don't think that the "...hello another" is completely pointless, if you interpret "brought back" as "retained" or even "emphasized", which I guess is how I read it at the time, or I should have mentioned ci then. (I thought ci was in the table before; maybe I'm thinking of another Wiki.) Ailanto 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I guess what I should have said was something more qualified like "I suspect that it would be used just as much, or just as little, as Ido's familiar form, by people whose mother tongues use a familiar form, if they know that it exists, and haven't been told that it's rarely used, etc."! :-) Ailanto 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical endings table suggestions

I added the english text "to go" to the table of grammatical endings, because I found it really distracting to look at the table without knowing what the words meant. As a nonspeaker of both Esperanto and Ido, I think that a table which included all of Esperanto, Ido, and English would be more useful. Of course, if we were doing that, we'd probably want to pick a verb that was regular in English. I've included an example table below; if someone thinks it's a good idea, feel free to fill in the spaces and use it.

Grammatical form Ido Esperanto English
Singular noun -o (NOUNo) NOUN NOUN
Plural noun -i (NOUNi) -oj (NOUNoj) -s (NOUNs)
Adjective -a (ADJa) ADJ -y (ADJy)
Adverb -e (ADV) ADV -ily (ADJily)
Adverb -e (ADV) ADV -ily (ADJily)
Present tense infinitive -ar (VERBar) -i (VERBi) to VERB
Past tense infinitive -ir (VERBir) N/A N/A
Future tense infinitive -or (VERBor) N/A N/A
Present -as (VERBas) ESPERANTO VERB
Past -is (VERBis) ESPERANTO -ed (VERBed)
Future -os (VERBos) ESPERANTO will VERB
Imperative -ez (VERBez) "-u" (VERBu) VERB
Conditional -us (VERBus) ESPERANTO ENGLISH


Okay, now that I look at that, I'm not completely convinced that it's an improvement. But if it seems like a good idea, you're welcome to it.

Wow. I hadn't realized how horrible making a table in Wikisyntax is. -- Creidieki 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] conlang vs. IAL

The article mixes the concept of an International Auxiliary Language with the greater concept of constructed languages (conlangs). In the beginning paragraph, it says:

Ido (pronounced idɔ) is a constructed language, a language purposely created to be easier to learn than any other natural language, and ideally to become a universal second language that would be used by all when conversing with people from a different linguistic background.

This may lead readers to think that all conlangs are created with these objectives in mind, which is not true (cf. Quenya and Klingon). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ptcamn (talk • contribs) 02:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

In the History section, it says:

The idea of a universal second language is not a new one, and the first known constructed language was created in the 12th century by St Hildegard of Bingen under the name Lingua Ignota.

Again, this seems to imply that Lingua Ignota was an IAL, which is not true. JoaoRicardo 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed that last night so it doesn't give that impression anymore. Mithridates 12:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, nice solution. JoaoRicardo talk 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] stress rule

Is there any way to tell from the spelling where the stress falls on an Ido word? I'm thinking of omnadía but lúndia; if the first is exceptional because it's a compound, while the second isn't, then what do we do with egóismo ? kwami 06:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that first one (omnadia) is because it's actually two words, every+day, so we stress it as dia, but in a stand-alone word an i and an a are one syllable. Egoismo is egoismo, because o+i doesn't become a diphthong. What else...a+u is a diphthong and maybe others that I can't recall. Mithridates 12:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
But with egoismo the stress is on the o, right? That's what I don't understand. kwami 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, it would be on the i. Putting the stress on the o would make it sound like egwismo but the word comes from two separate parts ego + ismo. As far as I know that's the way it works with words made from two parts. Mithridates 10:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
All right, maybe my source was mistaken. kwami 10:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the links included (http://ido.view.net.au/kgd/) appears to be down... 218.166.74.98 01:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lu, il , la?

the page says that il is the male pronoun (he), and mentions that lu can be used indistinctly. however, the little prince is referred with "la" , and the picture about ana frank diary uses " la diario", etc.. when is la used? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

'la' is just the word for 'the', same as the French 'le' and 'la'. Here's an example: lu dicis- ka la steli intence brilas - he said- do the stars burn intensely...lu could be 'she' but we know we're talking about a guy here so it would be translated back as 'he'. Mithridates 07:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW one part that might cause confusion is this one for example: E la du permanis silence. - And the two stayed silent. You could also say li permanis silence for "they", but here it specifies that there are two, same as in English. "The two". Mithridates 07:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] locking this page while featured?

I was showing the wiki to friends and some big tits came up for the article, luckly it was corrected quickly to showcase the ability to clean up vandalism, but I don't think they were convinced.

That's why I always make sure to show people with an old id like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ido&oldid=32676863 I've had the same thing happen to me before and never again. *^^* Mithridates 11:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

yeah, i was going to edit out the vandalisim but somebody got to it while i was editing. I think featured articles should be locked to avoid vandalisim. At least it wasnt really nasty stuff.

I think I was the one who beat you too it - there needs to be a tag where at least unregistered users can't edit a page on the front page. Anyone know where is the proper place we can ask this? --Nutschig 09:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Angr (t·c) 10:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :-)
Thank you! --Nutschig 14:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

there's more vandalism up there as od 1 oclock pm est

We don't protect featured articles. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 18:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea just watch out for it, vandalism continues went to go fix it but someone else got to it first. Good job with keeping an eye on this page whoever is helping out. Rhettdb2005 19:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

I have temporarily semi-protected this page due to persistent vandalism. In order to request unprotection, post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Izehar 21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The page has now been unprotected. Izehar 23:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't protection standard for featured articles? kwami 23:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it was a serious mistake not to semi-protect this article once a vandal began to deface it with obscene graphics. If I'd had the time on Xmas Day, I'd have made sure the protection stuck. Wiki fundamentalism be damned, it was obviously inappropriate in a non-"adult"-oriented web site.--Chris 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Shouldn't this article be called "Ido language", to conform to the other language articles? And what happened to Ido the astronomical body, Ido the mythological character, etc.? (Methinks that the latter has more claim to primacy than the language, BTW.) Jorge Stolfi 00:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I suggest writing an article about him/her/it (and the astrological body, too). At present we don't even have Ido (disambiguation). I cannot find the other articles through search, either, nor does Britannica online give any search results (admittedly this is only for the free version) Do these articles exist or do they ought to exist? The difference is rather important. :-) JRM · Talk 14:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, the correct English spelling for the myth & planet is Ida, not Ido. Anyway, "X language" for a language article *is* a Wikipedia standard, isn't it? Jorge Stolfi 12:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure constructed languages don't have the 'language' bit after them because they themselves are languages, whereas English for example is an adjective referring to a place, and then the language gets put on afterward. That's what we do in Korean as well, there's no 어 for language at the end of Ido, Esperanto or any others. Mithridates 13:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Picking the three biggest constructed languages, Esperanto and Quenya don't have "language" in the title, whereas Klingon does - to separate it from the description of the Klingon race. A browse of other constructed languages shows that Sindarin, Toki Pona, Volapük, Lojban, Lingua Ignota and Brithenig all are in the articles of the same titles. That's a fair survey of constructed languages, and it pretty conclusively is against a "X language" title. Cadriel 03:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1894 reforms

The comments on Zamenhof and the reform project of 1894 are incomplete and misleading. I see that today, Dave corrected a dead link to Don Harlow as a way of justifying the "superflous balast" quote. The quote which was put in its place is from an Idist page quoting in one paragraph several different writings of Zamenhof in two different copies of "La Esperantisto" in 1894. No justification is given as to why we should think that Zamenhof supported these changes and that others opposed them. My investigations into the reform project of 1894 have lead me to the opposite conclusion. (I have been known to claim to be the world expert on this subject - and have probably written more *in* the actual reform project than any other person living or dead.)

Also, since this claim is based on some old Idist literature on the subject, it leaves out the important detail that Ido is more like Esperanto than it is like the reform project of 1894. Knowing this, it seems silly to point out that Zamenhof proposed some of the changes which Ido uses - since in the same way, he "proposed" many more which Ido did not use.

On priciple, I do not edit articles in Wiki. Still, I would like to recommend that this bit about the reform project of 1894 be removed from the Ido article until someone more informed about the specific details can contribute.

Thomas Alexander

Hi Thomas, It's good to hear from you. I don't doubt the points you raise are reasonable ones. I have to admit I find the controversies around the Ido split and the 1894 reforms so mind-numbing that I can't bring myself to form a firm opinion about them, let alone articulate one. I hate to be disagreeable, but, really, you're the one who should be editing this section. If your principles forbid, then I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with having other people's (no doubt prejudiced and ill-informed) opinions incorporated into Wikipedia. --Chris 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (Chris B.)

[edit] Number of speakers

Not sure who wrote in the other numbers but now that I think about it I could almost name 200 Ido speakers myself from the ones I've interacted with online. I would give at least 500 as the lowest number as there are quite a few old people as well as those who are Esperantists foremost but have learned Ido as well. The actual number is still as unknown as always though. Mithridates 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neniu parolas Idon, ĝi estas mortinta lingvo. Ĉiam estis estas estos nur unu internacia lingvo. Kial vi ne lernas paroli la Zamenhofan lingvon kaj ni ĉiuj levigu la Verdan Flagon kune!

I didn't undrstand evrything said above, but there are definitly some Ido speakers.Cameron Nedland 01:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ka for question

Does "ka" in any way come from the japanese question work ka? 68.6.112.70 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read that somewhere. --MarSch 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering that too. Does "ne" not also negate a sentence in Japanese (like, "desu ne" means "is not")? 75.153.221.227 06:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, NE is a particle that asks for agreement.
Atarashii desu. - It is new.
Atarashii desu ne. - It is new, isn't it?
Atarashii desu deshou. - It is new, don't you think?
Atarashii desu ka. - Is it new?
Atarashikatta - It was new.
Atarashikunai - It isn't new.
Atarashikunakatta - It wasn't new.
EDIT: Removed overkill...
75.162.33.138 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet

So c is still [ts] and a lot is still the same from Esperanto, right?Cameron Nedland 12:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

C pronunciation is the same and so are most of the other letters. Ido has three (I think it's three) less consonants than Esperanto has. Mithridates 16:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thou vs you

In the table of pronouns, thou is shown as the familiar English second person pronoun, and you as the formal. Surely this is the wrong way around? Direvus 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You get that impression nowadays but actually it's not: see thou. Mithridates 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
But isn't it actually used that way now? Not that it's used that much, but shouldn't current use be the guide? "Computer", for example, used to be a guy with a pencil. Doovinator 02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Doovinator. Having read thou, I believe this is a poor example to give in explaining Ido pronouns to an English-speaking person (which, after all, is the whole point of the table). I see now that thou is not actually a formal pronoun, but nor is it a familiar pronoun, in modern usage. The use of thou in the article is anachronistic at best. Perhaps it would be better to simply list the English second person pronouns as they really are: familiar you and formal you. Direvus 12:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag?

Where did the flag in the article come from? Every other flag Ido flag I've ever seen used light blue (not bluish purple!) and the star had the word "Ido" in black in the center. Why is this one different? 64.195.76.124 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinitive?

Where did the three infinitives come from for the table? According to this page, there's only one, the "-ar" ending. If this is not the case, then I think that two things are in order: (1) an external citation, and (2) a brief explanation between the differences in use between the three. Anyone?

[edit] Yahoo! poll results

Mithridates restored the following text to the article after I deleted it:

A small sample of 24 Idists on the Yahoo! group Idolisto during late 2005 showed that 57% had begun their studies of the language during the past three years, 32% from the mid-1990s to 2002, and 8% had known the language from before.

Ignoring the question of why the linguistic educational history of 24 individuals is notable enough to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article, a non-scientific Yahoo! Groups poll is not an encyclopedic source. Furthermore, this piece of trivia fails to meet Wikipedia standards on verifiability as the results of the poll are not visible to people who do not have Yahoo! Groups accounts registered as members of the group Idolisto, membership to which is subject to moderators' approval. This line needs to go. -- Schaefer (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually I would agree but as IALs with the exception of Esperanto have extremely small communities, a poll like this is about all we have to go by. The line was also there when it passed the FA nomination and it stayed there for the whole day while on the front page as well. I would prefer leaving it up until we get something a bit better, after which it can be replaced. Mithridates 11:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I should apologize for not giving a reason why when I first reverted part of the edit. I was just running out the door at the time. Mithridates 11:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for "something a bit better" is waiting for Godot. Ido doesn't attract much academic interest. Considering that there no information has been found in reputable sources for even how many Ido speakers are out there on the Internet, what are the odds of any journal publishing a study of when Ido speakers began studying the language? -- Schaefer (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of speakers

Attention, I have no intention of becoming embroiled in a three-way edit war. If there's no reasonably reliable assessment of the number of Ido speakers then the only correct course of action is to not assert any such number in the article. -- Dissident (Talk) 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're civilized enough not to start an edit war over something so trite. I just explained my position on this however and will copy it here as well: Mithridates 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll go get some feedback from the auxlang list as well on this. I see you're an administrator on the Interlingua Wikipedia - the Interlingua page doesn't indicate the population numbers but also doesn't indicate that it's one of the 'big three', which I think it should. I would have no problem with something that made this obvious in both the Ido and Interlingua pages. Mithridates 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I understand the policy you referenced when removing the numbers, but simply going at the Ido page isn't going to solve the problem. There are a few reasons why this isn't such a simple matter as referring to policy:

  • Not only the Ido page but also other IAL pages have population estimates. If you are going to implement policy here I think it would be best to discuss them as a whole first before acting, otherwise there is likely to be opposition from each and every page.
  • Ido is similar enough to Esperanto that the two are mostly legible (I can read and understand Esperanto without ever having studied it), but the politics between the two makes it almost a matter of allegience to one or another and not simply a matter of number of speakers. There are quite a few Esperanto speakers that have learned Ido for fun but choose not to support it, and in addition to IAL communities always being diasporas, this makes finding an exact number impossible.

For that reason I decided to take a quote from Don Harlow, one of the foremost Esperantists in the world (and certainly no fan of Ido) which states that the number of Ido speakers is somewhere in the thousands, and then add a caveat that the number is a very broad estimate, and explain below the reasons why. If you like we could make the number a bit more general, because in reality 'in the thousands' is as exact as we can get. The less exact the number, the less accurate a source we need. The only thing that concerns me about removing the number is the loss of information on the size and activity of the community - being one of the so-called 'big three', Ido has far more content and activity than languages such as Occidental and Novial, and removing the number would make this less obvious.

Or, if you're really opposed to using a number, perhaps a rank might be possible. Esperanto is certainly the largest, Ido and Interlingua are on the tier below with a similar size and user base, and all the rest are barely alive. There is also a ranking system a German Esperantist developed for IALs based on their content and their activity, from something like 'personal project' to 'mostly functional language' to 'full language' (a language with a self-sustaining community I think) and Ido and Interlingua were a few steps away from full language, meaning that they functioned mostly as languages but were still in danger of dying if something catastrophic were to happen like mass dissension or if a few important figures were to die. Mithridates 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that other articles do not conform to policy does not justify this one doing the same. The difficulty in accurately measuring the number of Ido speakers makes it more important, not less, to properly attribute any estimates on this page. If there is a reliable source that says Ido is the second/third most widely spoken IAL, then just say that and cite the source without making up numbers. -- Schaefer (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a justification for the numbers but rather a way to bring about a unified policy for each of the IAL pages. Without an interest in IALs (from what I can tell) for you it's a matter of enforcing policy on a single page, but what I'm saying is that this calls for a complete overhaul. Not only are there estimates on other IALs, but estimates on the other language Wikipedias as well, and I know from watching the page for the past two years that somebody _will_ just come in and add a number again. To give an analogy, forcing policy on this single page is the equivalent of going to a dandelion-filled lawn, yanking the flower off of the top of one of them and then walking off satisfied with tackling the problem. I doubt you're aware of this page for example, which has estimates both for Ido and Interlingua, and not only in English but other languages for that as well. If you are interested in tackling the whole thing then you're welcome to do so, but the quick removal of a number from a single page in a single language in no way improves the encyclopedia or does more than lop a single head off of this hydra. You're going to have to stick around for much longer to accomplish that - and as I said above, I don't mind, but only if it's done right and is replaced with something that gives an indication of size (be it number of speakers, corpus size, etc.) which is one of the first things a person interested in an IAL wants to know. Mithridates 02:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If "somebody" comes by and inserts unverifiable information out of ignorance, I'll gladly revert them and try to enlighten them as to why their edits violate policy. The issue here is that you, personally, have reinserted the unsourced numbers after I have removed them on two separate occasions. You now seem to concede that these numbers violate Wikipedia policy, and yet (as far as I can tell) oppose my edits on the grounds that I have not gone far enough in removing speaker estimates from other articles as well. If I am guilty of removing dandelions from only one corner of the yard, does the yard benefit from you walking behind me replanting them in the ground? If a three-headed dragon is devouring innocent children, and I cut off one head, do the children benefit from you stitching it back on? I am genuinely puzzled as to what argument you're making with your analogies. -- Schaefer (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I'd appreciate it if you stayed around to work on all IAL pages, not just Ido. From your edits you don't seem to have a personal interest in IALs so I doubt that you would have the patience to work with us on each and every page (there are dozens). I hope you prove me wrong on that - I just don't want you to feel that you've contributed to the quality of the pages by coming in, making a quick edit, citing policy to make your point and jaunting off. Mithridates 14:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What I do on other pages is irrelevant. Again, I do not understand what argument you are making in defense of your reverts, assuming you are making one at all. "You have not contributed and probably don't intend to contribute to other IAL articles and thus I am justified in reverting your contributions to this one" simply doesn't cut it. If you aren't arguing in defense of your reverts, then let's get back on topic. My only concern is this: When I remove these unverifiable speaker estimates again, will you try to reinsert them without attribution to a reliable source? If not, then we can move on and nothing else needs to be discussed. -- Schaefer (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest you check this website http://www.polyglot-learn-language.com/ You will find a 1:32 or 1:35 ratio ido:esperanto This is what I found. (Elavoie) 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that it feels unsatisfying to make an article state less. However, accuracy should be the main concern here, especially since this is a featured article. Since several separate raw figures are present on the article, it should be left to the readers to do any guessing. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, but why is it that in the language translation sidebar found throughout Wikipedia, there is no option for Ido? Of course, it is not a major language, but there are those who speak it. After all, given the sheer volume of questions and comments about the article, there are certainly plenty of people who have had the article pique their respective curiosities.

Bealestreet 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The translation is done by hand, but there are some articles with Ido equivalents, like Jorge Luis Borges (look for Ido in the side bar). In fact, all the Ido articles can be found in the Ido Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic seems to have died down with no consensus. I would like to revive it by asking for the origin of the 2,500 estimate, currently qualified with a link to the community section, which makes no mention of the number. The only estimate provided there is "somewhere in the thousands", which appears in an Usenet posting (I assume it does—no link to this post is provided) by Don Harlow, who, as far as I am able to determine from his personal website, has no history of publication in reputable sources to make his estimate worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the 2,500 figure in the infobox and leaving a link to the community section so that the reader my formulate their own number from the information provided there. I wish to remove Don Harlow's comment as well, as I do not believe he meets the requirements outlined in the official policy on self-published sources to warrant the inclusion of his Usenet posting, but I would like to first achieve some sort of consensus on the issue here. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo?

Where did that logo come from? I've never seen in it in the ten years I've worked with Ido online. 207.203.80.14 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, where did it come from? This article presents no less than three logos for Ido, with no explanation of where they originate from, what official notable body used them to identify with Ido, etc. All three images were created by Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons editors and released into the public domain, but one can't simply compose some novel arrangement of stars and stripes and put it on the article United States as "an American flag" or "logo for United States". Were these logos used by Ido's creators, or did they arise out of Ido's modern Internet following? -- Schaefer (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this mysterious "Ido flag". It's handsome, but there's no indication of its authenticity. The image file seems to say it's the original work of the person who added it. Llajwa 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Whoops, my mistake. Both the logo and the flag can be seen at [3]. Llajwa 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could

whose creators had aspirations that Ido would<c>instead of<c.>created to

langmaker.com is blocking me; maybe someone set me up the bomb.


As an exlinguistics major, aspire can be a transistive verb, as language can change.100110100 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So you said it's awkward. What suggestions do you have. We can't have POV.100110100 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone else from another site stated on the change:

As for the language change, it has essentially the same meaning, but it is unnecessarily wordy, and the word "aspirations" connotes that the language has somehow fallen short or not yet reached those aims stated in the latter part of the sentence. This seems to me to be a clear instance of weasel words. Call the editor out on POV and revert it back to how it was.

"Created to become" does not imply success, it implies the reason for its creation. There's no POV there. My shirt was "created to be worn" - doesn't mean that it's being worn, is being worn by me or anybody else. It means that a person thought "I will make this, and somebody will wear it" and then created the shirt, nothing more. In instances of clear POV you'll need to put up a POV template and make the case. If you're simply looking for different wording there are tons of ways of doing so without making the lead sentence that bloated. The comma conjunction also denotes a second subject and there are recommendations to make the lead sentence even shorter than the one before you changed it:

I feel that in a case like this, "comma conjunction" (i.e. ,and vs. and) denotes a compound sentence, entailing a second subject and predicate. The word creators fulfills its action with "had aspirations". Since there is one subject, "Ido," the comma should be deleted, and for consistency's sake, the "to" should be omitted from "to be easier" as it was from "to become".

Shorter is always better.

Mithridates 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 100 years of Ido

Today is the celebration for the creation of Ido, one of the most important events in the history of the conauxlang movement. Happy birthday, Ido! :) (Comment written by someone who is not an Ido speaker.) --Antonielly 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)