Print

Print


James Chandler wrote:
> <The biggest problem with Ido is not a lack of technical terms.  The big dictionaries as well as the two Lexiki (especially the second one, published in 2001) are full of obscure technical words.  But then Ido still lacks a word for "computer", that thing I've been using every day since 1996/7 to research and use auxlangs.  This leads to a situation where two different words have been coined, komputoro* and komputilo*, which both have to carry an asterisk.  What it needs is for someone to get hold of the problem and arrive at a choice of one or the other, and then officialize it.>
>   

The same debate (about a word for "computer") happened in Esperanto 
about 20 years ago, maybe less. The problem was (and it's probably the 
same in Ido) that the root "komput-" already existed meaning "compute" 
in the mathematical sense, and,. of course, a present-day computer does 
a whole lot more than that; so, in principle "komputilo" wouldn't do. 
Some people maintained that "komputilo" ought to mean, or actually did 
mean, "adding machine". Likewise taking "komputero" from English 
wouldn't do, as "-ero" is a suffix meaning "item, component" so a 
"komputero" would be an item, or instance, of computation, whatever that 
would be. So others proposed "komputoro", but it didn't catch on. 
Eventually people accepted "komputilo", so the root "komput-" has 
tacitly been revised to mean "to do things using a computer". 
Derivatives such as "komputado", "komputisto" etc. have arisen accordingly.
As far as I know none of this has been officialised, or perhaps only 
recently, but Esperantists have never been too bothered about whether 
things are official or not. Generally the majority is ipso facto right, 
though this can of course lead to bad decisions.

Geoffrey King
>
>