Print

Print


On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Kjell [iso-8859-1] Rehnstr=F6m wrote:
 
> Mike Farris scribeva
 
> >I'd also like to put in a word for the recognizability of Eo. Even when =
I
> >knew almost no Eo, I could still sight read it at least as well as I can
> >IALA now (maybe I'm strange) and the first time I heard it (having studi=
ed
> >it a *very*  little) I could understand the general drift, not everythin=
g,
> >but the general idea.
>=20
> Multo interessante experientia!
 
I also find Eo/Ido easier to parse, grammatically;
but the Ia roots are much easier.
 
I have written simple perl scripts to help me to read each,
and found that with Ia the top 100 little words (adverbs and
particles) account for 50% of the words in a typical
paragraph; still I often have difficulty with the idiomatic
expressions that tend to litter Ia.
 
With Ido the grammar is simple and uniform ("ido-ish" !=3D "idiomatic")
but the suffixes are often problematic, as if the idiomatic component
has moved from syntax to morphology.
 
What I'd want ideally, of course, would be non-idiomatic grammar
(sacrificing the agglutinative morphology) AND easy-for-many
somewhat-international vocabulary. A shotgun marriage might work.