Print

Print


--- On Sat, 10/25/08, James Chandler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Steve scrit:
> 
> >Ido is fun and a useful mental tool, even if it's
> not a practical auxlang in the Eo sense.
> 
> Please define "practical auxlang".
> 
> 
It helps to give the context, as usual. Speaking of Neves, I said

His "Lo mikra es bel" essay took almost a hobia lingvo approach anyway: Ido is fun and a useful mental tool, even if it's not a practical auxlang in the Eo sense. (In fact, I think it could morph into Idist Civitismo without much effort.)

In other words, in Neves' own essay, he presented the idea of Ido as a hobby--an intellectually useful and aesthetically pleasing hobby more than an auxlang. This is the structure of the essay:

1. Why learn or use Ido?
a. Superficially, Ido hasn't much to offer, being not widespread and rarely used ("poke difuzita e rare uzata").
b. Ido has other qualities that justify its existence and use.

2. The nature of Ido
a. Philosophical, aesthetic, eclectic
b. Without political aims
c. The true goal of Ido is personal and aesthetic:
"Ido es alembiko. Lo distilita da ol destinesas ad ebriigar kordii sentiva e menti fertila. Ed ico esas lua precipua traito ed anke lua existo-motivo."
"Yen ke ni trovis la precipua skopo di Ido: plezar."

3. Idists are like knights errant seeking their fellows and spreading culture. They may be few in number, but the personal benefits of Ido are sufficient for them. Small is beautiful.

Nothing there, in other words, about providing the world with a second language. Certain elite inidividuals will take up the cause, but there's really nothing about growth and gianing an ever-greater speaking population. He seems to accept the minority status of Ido and even embrace it. That's why I said his view is similar to Civitismo in Eo.

So to sum up: I was expressing his views as I understand them, not necessarily my own.

Steve