Je 12.44 ptm 2002.11.23 +0100, vi skribis
>"Donald J. HARLOW" wrote:
> > An article of that title, by Donald Broadribb, at
> >
> >
> >
> > It's originally from the "International Language Reporter".
> >
> > -- Don HARLOW
> >
>(...) Thus, where Esperanto forms from the adjectival root bel
>the abstract noun belo (beauty), in Ido
>the noun formation belo must signify a beautiful thing.
>The man has not made his homework. In _ido_ "belo" means a
>beautiful person, doesn't it?

I believe that you are correct -- which, of course, does not obviate the
point that Broadribb was making, a person being a physical object rather
than the name of an abstraction.

>Beleso is beauty.
>I would say that Ido is Esperanto for French people. It is
>typical that it was French Esperantists who argued that "belo,
>bono" could be what we earlier had called "beleco, boneco".
>(Waringhien et. al.) as I understand it.

But actually that's just the opposite of what the Idist use of the -o on
adjective roots does.

The argument "belo = beleco" is, of course, incorrect; but the distinction
is relatively small, and many people feel that it's not necessary to make
it most of the time. (*) (A pedant like myself might disagree about that.)
The substitution of "belo" for "beleco" supposedly follows from de
Saussure's "Principle of Necessity and Sufficiency" (i.e., use all the
affixes you absolutely need, and no more), which today is accorded standing
similar to that of Occam's Razor in the physical sciences; i.e., it's
treated as though it were a law of nature, even though it isn't.


(*) I often suspect that many people follow their own native-language
habits with respect to possible affixes in this. An English speaker, who
will have no trouble referring to the color red as "rug^o", even where
"rug^eco" is more appropriate, will always call muteness "muteco", even
where "muto" might be more correct.


Pasis longa voj'
Iri ĉi tien de for;
Pasis longa temp',
Sed alvenas mia hor' ...