Talk:Comparison between Esperanto and Ido

message: Okay, this is the first bit of the article. Not sure if the url for the Fundamento is the best one so replace as you all see fit. 211.240.138.197 11:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Anybody have any concrete numbers for the total amount of donations, purchases and whatnot for the Esperanto community? For Ido it's quite easy because it's almost nothing. There's the yearly conference plus some books and dictionaries that can be bought, and the rest is all available on-line for free. I always read about rich people from Hungary, Brazil and Japan pitching in for Esperanto though. Also how many people actually make a living just working for Espo? That would be interesting to add. Mithridates 11:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finances 

message: Mithradates, if spozulo is optionally spozo, doesn't that destroy the morphological argument for Ido? How can the part of speech of the root be transparent if it can be used as either a noun or a verb without a suffix, like the Esperanto example of krono/kroni? Just curious. kwami 19:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: spozo by itself does just mean "spouse" but I don't think there are any derivations from that, except for awkward ones like spozigar which probably sounds about as good as "spousify" for marriage, which is just mariajar in Ido. Is that what you meant? The word spozo by itself just signifies a person one is married to, male or female, and the addition of -ul- makes it clear that we're referring to a man. Mithridates 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  optional affixes 

message: I have started a history section, which at the moment seems very biased towards Esperanto, but this is not actually the case. I am trying to write a section which will present, not just a history of the two languages, but also a history of the two movements' relationship to one another. Honestly, I cannot find much reference material which isn't biased. The Esperantists feel betrayed by the evil Idists, and the Idists all seem to be martyrs of the cause of a better language. I know truth usually lies inbetween. I simply want to present how each side feels about the other. Perhaps there should be a seperate section on the movements' relationship? Thoughts anyway. And please feel free to add or edit. Jon 04:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: -- I think that an important point in Ido is its "unasenceso" (one-sensedness) principle. Every Ido root has one meaning, while some Esperanto roots actually have two close meanings: verbal and non-verbal. For instance, adolesko (a teenager) - adoleski (to grow up), aero (air) - aeri (to pump), aviado (aviation) - aviadi (to fly a plane). Some verb-noun pairs are modelled after English or other languages, e.g. akvo (water) - akvi (to water), almozo (alm) - almozi (to beg for alms) (and that's only a fraction of examples starting with A). Even more disturbing, some compound words are permitted to have a fixed meaning: lernejo (school) literally means only a place to learn. This is something that can never happen in Ido.
Do these these issues deserve mentioning on the page? And what do Esperantists think of them?
Alih 12:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it. Those claims may be made, but they're not possible in human language. The only way Ido could maintain this level of perfect regularity would be if it were never spoken. As soon as you get a speaking community, people will start using words idiosyncratically. Granted, I don't know Ido, so perhaps it is the one exception to all other language, but I've heard that the forced regularity of Ido on the surface level only serves to push its irregularities in deeper, where they aren't noticed by the novice, but where in the end they cause the same difficulties as the irregularities of Espo. kwami 18:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Adolesko" is a bad example. It doesn't mean "teenager". That's "adoleskanto". It's a verbal root, which does not mean "to grow up", but "to be an adolescent", so "adolesko" means "adolescence". 217.109.85.156 (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Memorizing the meaning of a root without memorizing if it's a noun or a verb? How does that work? What do you memorize? If you only memorize that "kron-" is something related to a crown, but can't remember if it's the noun "crown" or the verb "to crown", then you can't know if "krono" means "crown" or "coronation". 217.109.85.156 (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: unasenceso

message: Somone made the chart where you can't read the Ido and Esperanto.  I don't know how to fix it.Cameron Nedland 13:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart 

message: In vocabulary it says:
"However, Ido lacks the one-to-one correspondence between letters and phonemes that Esperanto has, using the three digraphs qu, sh and ch. One-to-one correspondence has been adopted in Esperanto to ease pronunciation learning and parsability of the written text."
But Esperanto does have digraphs. oj, aj, aux, etc. It even says there are digraphs on the Esperanto wiki page. --98.203.152.242 (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocabulary 

message: Linguists use angle brackets when exhibiting orthography, as in <ĉ> stands for [tʃ]. I am changing all of the quotation marks around individual letters that are currently in the article. --N-k (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When I saw <unnecessary< I thought there must be a PLATO veteran about: on PLATO keyboards, double-quote is shift-comma. —Tamfang (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

text: In at least some articles ‹› is preferred to <>. —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or ⟨⟩ (Unicode 27E8,27E9). —Tamfang (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representations of orthography 

message: It's important to add Latin language in the comparison. I feel that the claim that Esperanto deformed the root of words, such as bubalo "buffalo" is biased. In fact, the origin is Latin and it's bubalus. That's the least deformed of the rest of the languages:
 bufalo buffalo buffle Büffel bufalo búfalo búfalo
We already use Latin in taxonomy, so the Esperanto word for it is the closest to Latin, making it more memorized and more practical. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One may wonder why ĉevalo ('horse') rather than kabalo or kavalo. —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, indeed, however, the word kabalo is already used for kabbalah and Kavalo is also used for some place in Greece (Kavala), so the Esperanto word for "horse" is obviously borrowed from French, "cheval". It could be "kabaluso" (from Latin, "caballus"), the same way the problem with (horo, koro, ĥoro) was solved by using koruso. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison bias 

message: : Ido word order is generally the same as Esperanto (subject–verb–object). ... There are a few differences, however:
:* Adjectives can precede the noun as in English, or follow the noun as in Spanish. Thus, Me havas la libro blua means the same thing.
That's not a difference!  Eĉ guto malgranda, konstante frapante, traboras la monton granitan. —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  word order 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comparison between Esperanto and Ido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125103925/http://idomondo.org/skolo.1.6.pdf to http://idomondo.org/skolo.1.6.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a new site about Esperanto1894 live online by now:
https://sites.google.com/site/esperanto1894/
It suddenly strikes me that the year of this reformation of the artificial language, 1894, might have of influence to Orwell's 1984 next to the publication date of his work (1948)... otherwise it's a nice coincidence or an intertextuality by pure chance Jansegers (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esperanto1894 

message: The chart explains that Ido requires accusative only if the object precedes the subject, but the examples given for Ido contrast in whether the object precedes the verb, not the subject. If the explanation is correct then it should be valid Ido to say me lakto drinkas while the mandatory accusative would occur in lakton me drinkas. KVenzke (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusative marking being optional 

message: I was confused about what 'utrum' meant and why is was used 11 times throughout the article, so I searched it up. It's an obscure term that derives from Swedish utrum that refers to common gender (i.e., masculine and feminine genders, but not neuter gender). The Wikipedia page merely redirects to the Swedish grammar page, and Wiktionary is sparse.
The article itself cites no one that directly uses 'utrum' to refer to common gender, leading me to believe it was a Swedish editor that didn't know the English equivalent.
Kosinvita (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're most likely right. It really doesn't seem like a real linguistic term in English. -  Munmula (talk · contribs) 08:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I've just looked it up and it seems that in Latin uter/utrum means "either", while neuter/neutrum means "none". Since this makes them opposites, the use of 'utrum' would be to emphasize this difference (i.e., that 'common' is not the same as 'neuter', but rather its opposite). Anyway, a replacement by 'common' seems reasonable. -  Munmula (talk · contribs) 09:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove 'utrum' and replace with 'common gender'