Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: In what ways do Ido and Esperanto significantly differ?

Expand Messages
  • Todd Moody
    ... Jumping in here... I don t pretend to know Ido very well, but I m familiar with a few things. For example, while Esperanto has just the one adjectival
    Message 1 of 40 , Sep 5, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:20 am, Carl Mäsak wrote:
      > Do you have examples of the higher specificity of affixes, or their
      > non-independency as free-standing words?

      Jumping in here... I don't pretend to know Ido very well, but I'm
      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
      those meanings.

      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.

      Todd Moody
    • li_sasxsek@NUTTER.NET
      ... about ... I hadn t really been following this thread too closely, but I ll take a crack at it by saying usa is roughtly like the English word iffy ?
      Message 40 of 40 , Sep 8, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > [mailto:AUXLANG@...] On Behalf Of Donald J. HARLOW

        > > 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
        about
        > the second. Putting them together is incredibly easy.
        >
        > 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.

        I hadn't really been following this thread too closely, but I'll take
        a crack at it by saying "usa" is roughtly like the English word
        "iffy"?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.