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.