On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:57:35 -0400, Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]> 

>On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, James Chandler wrote:
>> Jens skripted:
>>> Is James' attitude about neologisms a common
>>> feature of Idists, or is it just his own stance?
>> It's a common feature of Ido, it's not even anyone's
>> stance, it's the official rule!  There is an
>> officially sanctioned lexicon, and any word not in
>> that lexicon is _de facto_ unofficial and _must_ be
>> marked with an asterisk.
>And if it is an official rule, I would call it a foolish one.  Is
>Ido for true communication or for playing around with rules in an
>artificial context?

This is why I understand James' actions. If I were an Idist, I'd probably do the 
same thing he did, though I think I'd set up a rogue, asterisk-free wiki or 
something first.

There are aspects of Ido I like. But even if I completely loathed it, I would 
want it to fail on *intrinsic* flaws. The asterisk rule is really nothing to do with 
Ido's fitness. The same rule would hobble or paralyze Eo and Ia just as 
thoroughly. (Full disclosure: when I first encountered the rule about ten years 
ago, I initially thought it was reasonable. But I also thought, for some reason, 
that they did lexical updates more often than Eo.)

Kathleen Muggeridge (sp?--relationship, if any, to Malcolm unknown) said that 
if a parent couldn't be a shining example to his children, he should at least try 
to be a horrible warning. Inadvertently Idists have done just that so far. So 
again, I'm serious in asking for asterisk-free zones. If you don't do it, I may 
take it up myself. Since I'm an outsider, I have nothing to lose. If I do set up a 
wiki or something, I'll announce it here first.