Re: In what ways do Ido and Esperanto significantly differ?
- On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:20 am, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> Do you have examples of the higher specificity of affixes, or theirJumping in here... I don't pretend to know Ido very well, but I'm
> non-independency as free-standing words?
familiar with a few things. For example, while Esperanto has just the
one adjectival ending (with or without case and number endings), -a, Ido
has two, -a, and -ala. While the Esperanto ending could mean either
"characteristic of" or "pertaining to", the Ido endings are specific to
In Esperanto, roots are fundamentally noun-like, verb-like, or
adjective-like, and you have to learn which are which. Thus, the root
"komb-" is verb-like, so to get the thing you use on your hair, you add
the affix "-ilo" and get "kombilo." But "bros-" is noun-like, so
"broso" *is* the implement. When the noun is an implement, the verb
generally just means to use the implement in the expected way, as Kjell
described with the example "marteli" etc. In Ido you use the -ag-
suffix to specify that you're doing the expected action.
Since the boundary of what is and isn't an implement is somewhat blurry,
there will be cases where the Esperanto could go either way, as in
English. We might say in English "I penned a response." Could you say
in Esperanto "Mi plumis respondon"? I don't see why not, but I don't
know if it's "preferred" usage. I *have* seen "Mi auxtis" instead of
"Mi iris per auxto" or "Mi iris auxte", and although some complain about
the usage, it's fairly common.
The general point is that Esperanto uses the "principle of necessity and
sufficiency" in word-making, while Ido uses the "principle of
reversibility." The Esperanto principle means use only as many affixes
as are contextually necessary and sufficient to specify the intended
meaning. The Ido principle means that it should always be possible to
derive one word from another *in both directions* using affixes. This
doesn't work in Esperanto, obviously. If you see the Esperanto word
"kombi" you can't know whether "kombo" means comb (it doesn't) or a
gerund. If, on the other hand, you see the Ido "kombagar" you know that
"kombo" means comb. The principle of reversibility is, I believe, why
people regard Ido as more precise.
> [mailto:AUXLANG@...] On Behalf Of Donald J. HARLOWabout
> > but I'm damned if I can figure out what "usa" means.
> Paul, I confess that I can hardly believe this. The student of
> Esperanto learns what the morpheme "us" means in about the fifth or
> sixth lesson; he (or she) learns what the morpheme "a" means in
> the second. Putting them together is incredibly easy.I hadn't really been following this thread too closely, but I'll take
> The word is, of course, not commonly used, probably because there's
> no ethnic language equivalent (at least not in any of the ethnic
> languages that I'm familiar with), but its meaning seems to
> me to be obvious.
a crack at it by saying "usa" is roughtly like the English word