[angla] Other Ido lists
- Kar amiki
I thought it might be interesting for the members of this list to know what
other lists are available for those interested in Ido. In fact, the number
of lists has grown rapidly during the last year or so, so that providing an
exhaustive description of our 'listaro' is not a trivial matter!
Idolisto is the central list for idistic discussions. It is the successor
of the original list Idol, the first Ido mailing list founded in 1997. It
has grown from humble beginnings and now has over 60 members. Until last
autumn, it was the home of all Ido discussion, whether it concerned movement
or language. But by general consensus of the members, discussion of reforms
in Ido are now discouraged, and take place instead on Linguolisto. You can
join Idolisto by sending an empty message to:
Use of Ido is not compulsory, but is recommended at all times.
Linguolisto is a relatively new list dedicated to linguistic discussions,
concerning reforms or additions to Ido. People seem to prefer that these
particular themes are kept separate from the main flow of debate. Recent
topics include the elaboration of a lexicon of computer terms for Ido. You
can subscribe by sending an empty message to:
Use of Ido is compulsory (owing to the specialist nature of the debate).
Idostab is another new list, for sympathizers of the 'stabilista' school of
idists. This school believes that Ido should not be reformed at all, only
essential new words being added. It is run by Jean Martignon of France,
editor of Letro Internaciona. You can subscribe by sending an empty message
In addition to these, there are counterparts of this list for other language
speakers. There is Francidol for french speakers, Idoespanyol for spanish
speakers, and Germanlinguaidist for german speakers. There is also a list
planned for japanese speakers.
Perhaps as your knowledge of Ido develops, you will feel you would like to
join one of the above lists (if you havent already).
Kordiale, James Chandler
"It is only fair to mention that many followers believe they in fact have a
practical test for explanatory adequacy: (1) if it's not from MIT, it's
wrong; (2) of two from MIT, the one O.K.'d by Chomsky or Halle is correct"
- Fred W. Householder, 'On some recent claims in phonological theory'