Print

Print


Chris Burd scribin:

> No doubt you have valid complaints about his discussion of Ido,
> but I must point out that in several past exchanges here, no-one
> has managed to get the better of Don on the facts of the Ido/Esperanto
> split.

Mi legin la du aluditas documentos e estin relative bone impresita
de la prezento den la materialo fare de Don. Tamen, char semblan existi
ia traditio de disputos con li pri tiu chi verco, ance mi partoprenon,
yene.

> The supersigned letters, the many Germanic and occasional Slavic words,
> the agglutinative morphology, the Slavic syntax, all these seemed to
> some leading Western adherents of Esperanto a deviation from the world's
> linguistic norms -- French and English. This basic theme -- that The Way
> We Do Things Is The One And Only Right Way -- would be reiterated over
> and over again, ad tedium, in the international language movement during
> the next half century.

Lo ya estontin, sed Don neglectan clarigi ce la esperantistos farin tiel
almene samquante ciel la idistos e naturalistos generale.

> And then, one morning, the members of the Delegation arrived at
> their meeting table to discover, neatly laid out before their chairs,
> copies of a draft proposal for the modification of Esperanto to make
> it acceptable to "civilized" -- i.e., French- and English-speaking --
> people. The author, a modestly anonymous person who signed himself
> "Ido" -- Esperanto for "offspring" -- obviously had only the best
> intentions -- a few simple reforms such as removal of the supersigned
> letters and consequent dephoneticization of the language, [...]

Mi povan compreni de chi tias comentos la colera reago de Michael.
Don povan ricani ce "the truth hurts, don't it", e ya estan ioma vero
en la insinuos. Sed de cie, ya, venin tiu vorto "civilized"? Chu de la
Ido-nolneto mem? Se ne, la cito estan multe nolpli apta. E mi devan diri
ance ce la acuzo ce Ido nolfoneticigin Esperanto per la forigo den la
supersignos semblan al mi signifagrade troiga. Se la hispana ne estan
nolfonetica pro la existo de "ch" en tiu lengo - e estun absurda aserti
tio - nec Ido devan esti tiel considerata pro la sama cialo.

> all of which would convert Esperanto into the Perfect International
> Language, immediately acceptable to everyone.

Denove, quaze la esperantistos neniam estin tiel stulte naivas.

> What was really surprising to the Delegation's Esperantists was
> De Beaufront's immediate and unrestrained enthusiasm. He immediately
> "packed it in" for Esperanto and converted to the Ido reforms, without
> so much as a telegram to his principal.

Ciam mi rencontin la raconto de la canadiano pri congresa parolo inter
Zamenhof e De Beaufront, en ciu la unua aprobin la ideo ce la dua tractu
reformos che la Delegatio, mi credin lo, e mi ancore credan lo. Don, chu
vi estan leginta tiu raconto? Se yes, chu vi ne povan consenti ce lo
almene eble estan vera, e tiel dubigan la traditia bildo de De Beaufront
ciel perfecta perfidulo? [Don may pretend not to understand my offensive
jargon, which is a typical Esperantic reaction these days - or not to have
the time to decipher it. If so he likely won't answer.]

> A permanent commission, consisting mainly of Couturat, was appointed
> to supervise the adoption of the reforms, and everybody went home,
> glad to be out of the mess.

Cortuma advocato certe protestun ye tiu puncto, e mi imagan ce la jughisto
subtene ordonun tio chi u forigita de la registrajo. Mi mem ordonan chio
alia a cio mi povun diri pri la Harlow-verco u forigita, char camcam mi
ne condividan lua entuziasmo por Fundamenta Esperanto, e trovan entute u
mirinda a la sinteno ce nepolurita praversio de io povan e devan esti
definitiva por chiam, mi ne eman o povan disputi pri factos con Don,
e lasan tio al Michael, a ciu mi denove petan listigi la factas eraros.

Roy