Print

Print


    I will respond to only a couple of Ken's remarks.  I long ago tired
of the fruitless and pointless back-and-forth with Bob Petry.
 
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Ken Caviness wrote:
 
>                                                 I have frequently said =
that
> the goal should be _fewer_ exceptions, not _more_ [...]
 
    I will accept this.  But it seems to me that Ido has more
regularity to some extent than Esperanto.  Why do E-o words ending in
'-a=FD' fall in three different parts of speech (serious question, not a
dig)?  Why does the correlatives table (which does not seem to exist
outside of E-o, other languages getting along well without such a
construction) stop where it does?  Why are there forms for motion
toward but not motion from?
 
>                                                             I suppose
> that's why some have said that the creation of Esperanto was more a wor=
k of
> art than of science.
 
    This I can accept and approve of.  Perhaps the designers of some
planlingvoj overlook this  But I am not overly enamored of pure art for
its own sake as an end in itself, so I will allow other considerations
into my personal calculus of evaluation.  That is why I prefer Ido over
Esperanto, even if its prospects are not overly bright at present.
 
--=20
Paul                                  <[log in to unmask]>
..........................................................
Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
Keyserver (0xF383C8F9) or WWW for PGP public key
Home Page:  http://www.smart.net/~bartlett