> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Rice

> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:49:17 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >Actually I will say E-o is more complicated than it needs to be.  I
> >think Ido addressed some of the basic redundancies by eliminating
> >things like adjective-noun agreement, and providing clearer sex
> >markers.
> But it isn't particularly hard to set up an ambiguity with
adjectives in Ido,
> especially since they allow adjectives before or after the noun. For

Yes, this is a problem with the "free" word order, and precisely what
I was trying to demonstrate.  Note that Esperanto's markers reduce
these possibilities because "rakonto" would be "rakonton", so the
presence or absence of the "-n" on "bela" would clarify which word it
was qualifying.

> Me rakontis al studentino bela rakonto.
> What does that mean? Is it
> 1. I told the pretty student a tale, or
> 2. I told the student a pretty tale ?
> I suspect it's the second (and in speech I could probably
> tell from cues not represented in writing).

It should also be noticed that the stricter word order of English also
keeps things in order without a marker, but even using poetic license
to put the adjective afterward, we would still have the articles to
break things up.

	I told the student pretty a tale.
	I told the student a tale pretty.