Lundio, la 20 mayo 2002, Stephen DeGrace skribis (mikra extracto):

> > relationship words -- perhaps a dozen to a dozen and
> > a half words, all
> > told.
>
> Yes, but a highly important and irritating set for
> this to exist in. And just think, to rectify it all
> you need to do is add a dozen to a half dozen words to
> the language, and add and use a masculinising suffix
> to make the problem go away.

    This is basically what Ido has already done.  I would say that's
not too shabby for 1907 or thereabouts.  (Even S. C. Houghton's
ill-named Master Language of 1907 also handled the sex-referent issue
similarly.  See http://www.smart.net/~bartlett/master.html .)

    On the issue of reform, Mike Farris pointed out in another post
that "reform" seems to be a dirty word to a lot of Esperantists.  Just
as I think the supersigned letters are a blunder for E-o, I think it
is also a blunder for Idists to keep on referring to Ido as "Reformed
Esperanto."  I think they should wipe that term off all web pages and
all publications referring to Ido.  All it does is just call more
attention to E-o, when they should be concentrating on their own
offering.

    As someone else put it, E-o was not bad as a first draft, and it
certainly works as a language.  No doubt about that.  And reformosis is
something to be avoided.  I can see, after a period of use, one reform
to a conIAL, such as Ido from E-o, and that's that.

--
Paul Bartlett
[log in to unmask]
PGP key info in message headers