From: brewer@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Steve Brewer)
Subject: Re: [Anglolingvo/English] easy to learn English?
Followup-To: soc.culture.esperanto
Organization: W M U Centro de Scienca Edukado
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:58:21 GMT

Once again, I've set the follow-up to s.c.e only and broadened
the distribution to world.

S-ulo Bruce Gilson <EZ-as-pi@cup.portal.com> skribas:
 
] Sven's comment that no language that
] shows gender information but is
] symmetrically disposed between mas-
] culine and feminine displays the usual
] reluctance of Esperantists to accept
] the successors of Esperanto as "real"
] that I see constantly. 

It isn't that we say the languages aren't real, only that these
languages are not in any way 'sucessors' to Esperanto.  If you can
show me any evidence that these languages are in any way 'sucessors'
to Esperanto, I'd be happy to agree with you.  What criteria are
you using?  I'll below suggest the kind of criteria I think might be
most appropriate.

] Look, for
] example, at Ido. In Ido, the unmodi-
] fied form carries no gender implica-
] tion, unlike Esperanto. The Esperan-
] to suffix -in- has its correlative
] in -ul- (easy to remember if you
] think of mascULine and femINine).
] So the language is absolutely
] gender-symmetric. 

This is a good example of why the Ido changes were so objectionable
to speakers.  The word -ul- is already a root and it doesn't have the
meaning given above.

I often wondered why the Ido split proved to be so devisive --
it seemed to me that the players might have found a more accomodating
path.  For example, if the idists had decided to simply continue to
call their language Esperanto, then it seemed to me that their changes
might have had a chance of surviving.  But then I got an Ido text book
and realized how fundamental the changes are.  Ido really isn't much
like Esperanto at all.  Saying that Ido is a modified Esperanto is like
saying that English is a modified German.  

Many of the changes cut against the whole grain of Esperanto, like doing
away with the table of correlatives.  The Esperanto '^si' becomes the
ido 'el,' the Esperanto 'el' becomes 'ek,' and who knows what happens to
the Esperanto 'ek.'  

Furthermore, many of the changes seem completely gratuitous, like changing 
the spelling of 'flava' to 'flavia' or 'grasa' to 'grosa.'  No wonder
Esperantists, when confronted with this alien language, rejected it 
so utterly.  To suggest that esperantists rejected the reasonable Ido 
reforms, then, seriously misrepresents the issue.  

I was particularly amused to see the veiled "sh*t or get off the pot" 
remark in Ren Rick Harrison's article.  (BTW, 'Ren' was the closest way
I could find to say 'mister' in Vorlin.  R+S fans go figure.)  
It seems to me that Esperanto is the only language that has gotten
beyond just talking about international languages, and has simply become 
one.  The UEA motto, 'unue ni vivigis ^gin, nun ni tutmondigu ^gin' 
seems particularly meaningful in this regard.  Don't TELL us that Ido 
or Vorlin or something is better, SHOW us.
-- 
Steven D. Brewer  brewer@cs.wmich.edu     ****     99brewer@lab.cc.wmich.edu
                  Center for Science Education,  Western Michigan University
Vi trovos lin nur post la tajda forkuro, bakita de l' suno, frapita de ondoj