Print

Print


Don Harlow scripted:
 
> The thought may have come from Cornioley, but the words were indeed yours;
> they do not match those he uses to express the same idea, and they were
> contained, without indication that they might have been quoted from
> elsewhere, in a paragraph of your devising. In fact, Cornioley describes
> the "du anmi" as a "luxo ... superflua", which is not the same as "a luxury
> Ido cannot afford". Had you said "a luxury Ido does not need" you would
> have been closer to Cornioley. Paul's analysis would indeed _appear_ to be
> correct.
 
I wasn't really trying to catch anyone out.  My point was that it is not
*just* me that has thought this way.  To my mind, it was the wisest Idists
in the difficult years of the late 20's and 30's that wanted to chart this
rational middle course.  Cornioley actually said:
 
(luxo tote superflua, evitend ed evitebla)
 
This means also "avoidable, and that should/must be avoided", which is
hardly a million miles from "that Ido cannot afford".  The gist is the
same.
That Paul's analysis is incorrect can be seen in another way: I have
begun to reveal what I would most like to see in an IL.  How long it
would take Ido to get to that, or whether it would go that way at all,
even if it were freed up today with a new Akademio, linguistic journal
etc. is anyone's guess.  But if that happened, I would seriously think
about dropping my own project.
 
James Chandler
[log in to unmask]