Print

Print


Can't we just pound a stake into this misquotation and be done with it?

--- On Wed, 11/5/08, Geoffrey King <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> steve rice wrote:

Actually, no, this is an edited version of my quote, and very misleading.

> > 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.)
> >
> > Steve
> You mean it hasn't already?

First off, the original quote (again!):

His [Neves'] "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.)

So it is Neves' approach to Ido that I thought "could morph into Idist Civitismo without much effort." Has it done so? I really don't know; I'm not current on his views. It would probably save a lot of tedious switching if he did take such a view, and I'm not sure it would actually harm Ido. (I'm not sure Civitismo truly harms Eo, though it's certainly annoying when its proponents get evangelistic about not being evangelistic.)

Steve