MacLeod Dave skrev:
> It's worth noting though that ia is definitely worth learning as long
> as the tinkerers never end up taking over the community. Two new books
> have just been published in the language ereyesterday:
> And I doubt the books have any of the aqui, eo, ego, so, or other
> nonsense. If ia is able to reach a point where there is enough
> material in the standard version and with the acceptable English-style
> word order ("io da illo a te" as well as "io lo te da" for example)
> then the language itself will be stronger. It's annoying when you
> write a perfectly correct sentence like "ille esseva in le schola e
> videva illes" that gets "corrected" to something along the lines of
> "ille era in le schola e les videva".
I was the one trying to write "ego" and such nonsence in  Interlingua. I 
have never written "aqui" as that is not interlingua. The word "ego" on 
the other hand does exist in the "Interlingua-English Dictionary". Now, 
the reasons many give for not using the word "ego" was that wan could se 
the Interlingua - English dictionary as a historical record and that 
usage had decided differently.

The first "tinkerer" should have been the Doctor Ruhrig of Germany who 
advocated a very special form of Interlingua. Esseva is correct 
interlingua, as is also "era".

The idea was to give interlingua a number of dialectal varieties that 
could be comfortable for speakers with different backgrounds.

But this is also the problem with Interlingua. People who can read 
dicationaries but not think will talk in favour of very strange 
suggestions for Interlingua.

On the other hand I have through the years haved contacts with a guy in 
Italy who thinks Interlingua is fantastic as he could learn it in a 
couple of weeks, which is not bad for a language, if you ask me. And 
Interlingua is way easier to understand than Italian, at least for me 
who never have read it formally.

Kjell R