Baard Hekland wrote:
>When this
>> opportunity is afforded of constructing a really scientific
>> language, why, in the name of common reason, I ask, should we
>> retain in that language unphonetic spellings which are simply
>> pious mementoes of a bygone Latin spelling which survive in
>> part in most of our modern languages to plague the student and
>> embarrass almost every writer?  There exists no "natural" use
>> of these spellings which is entirely international.  Contrast,
>> for example, the Italian, which absolutely swarms with double
>> consonants, to the Spanish, which is spelled phonetically and
>> in which practically no double letters appear.  An inventor
>> which would insist in retaining in his new machine some useless
>> part which simply had historical associations would be regarded
>> as somewhat of an ass.
>Well, quite often I have disagreed with James Chandler (maybe also because
>I don't like his habit to define all Esperanto-speakers as ignorant
>exstremists ;-)  , but here I think he's right.

It is really a pity that Esperanto and Ido went different ways. Had they
been able to collaborate Esperanto / Ido would have been much stronger and
might have gained the political strength to get a better position. I have
no difficulty whatsoever to understand Ido and on meeting speakers of Ido I
have been talkin in Esperanto to them, and that works fine.

Ido is certainly one of the fraternal tongues that I would like to see on
this list.


Kjell [log in to unmask]
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64  UPPSALA
Suedia - Sweden