Anonimnik G. pisal:
I haven't heard it before. But if followers of IDO are IDOITS then the movement must be IDOITISM. It makes sence, doesn't it?
===
It does not make a sense at all!
Esli ja studowaja Slavistia ja es Slavist, no to ale ne znacxit zxe ludi kto gvorit Slavju jaziki es Slavist!
Ja upotrebja Slovio nale ne es Slovioist
Here is correct translation to English of original Esperanto text of the Boulogne Declaration by Zamanhof. There is a serious error in translation, and since comes a lot of misunderstanding amongst English speakers who do not know Esperanto, neither they often do know well enough English...
And Eugeniusz.
Believe it or not there are some Esperantists, who do know Esperanto "exactly", or at least almost exctly. this does not make them enemies of Slovio. I love it and certainly intend to learn it no worser than I know Esperanto. I'm Polish too, and I see we share many mutual sensitivities. To many ism's are not healthy for sure:)
Part of the text of the Boulogne Declaration with significant error must be corrected this way:
Esperantisto estas nomata ĉiu persono, kiu scias kaj uzas
la lingvon Esperanto tute egale, por kiaj celoj li ĝin uzas.
Apertenado al ia aktiva societo esperantista por ĉiu
esperantisto estas rekomendinda, sed ne deviga
An Esperantist is named any person who knows and uses
an International language Esperanto quite equally for whatever goals one uses it.
Belonging to some active Esperantist society is to every
Esperantist recommendable, but not obligatory.
Even the initial problem with Esperanto and Ido is that they both use untraditional letters (basic letter that meet the rule : ONE SIGN FOR ONE LETTER).
Esperanto :
a b c ĉ d e f g ĝ h ĥ i j ĵ k l m n o p r s ŝ t u ŭ v z
Ido :
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
IDO USELESS LETTERS :
Letter " q " is a cluster of "kv" or "ku"
Letter " w " is practically useless (for nothing)
Letter " x " is a cluster of "ks" or "gz"
Letter " y " is useless (for nothing)
ESPERANTO NOT PRACTICAL LETTERS :
ĉ, ĥ, ŝ,
letter without any special meaning : ŭ
letters that do not correspond with the real sound of those letter that are basic (they differ in their writing and pronunciation ):
ĝ - that basically introduces letters / sounds : dzx / dz', d
ĵ - zx / z' / (this letter is not "arched" with the letter "j" and there is
not slight sound difference between those two letters / sounds.
(the sound of "j" is not slight relative with the letter ĵ)
the letter "ĵ" has nothing common with the letter "j" as e.g.
letter "s" and "".
Even the initial problem with Esperanto and Ido is that they both use untraditional letters
Ido uses traditional letters in mostly traditional way.
ONE SIGN FOR ONE LETTER.
Many people declared this principle, but nobody managed to explain what's use of it. Sure, if you invent something like Quenya it's okay to create a one-to-one alphabet. But if you create an auxiliary language you should use writing traditions of your 'source' languages, not to create ones of your own.
E.g. Lingua Franca Nova is a great language, but one of the main flaws of it is its 'simplified' alphabet. What's use of having familiar words if they were made to look in unfamiliar way? It was said something about that it would be easier for children to learn to write in it. But this languages are made for children, they are made for adult and literate people who want to communicate with foreigners. It isn't proplem for them to know that 'c' followed by 'e' is pronounced /s/, but it's problem for them to keep in mind that 'ce' is pronounced /ke/.
IDO USELESS LETTERS: (q w x y)
Of course they are useful, since they improve comprehesibility of Ido texts. Not to mention that 'y' is the only way to spell /j/ sound in it.
Aha, and Esperanto letter 'c' is useless because it "basically introduces letters / sounds" ts.
ĵ - zx / z' / ž (this letter is not "arched" with the letter "j" and there is not slight sound difference between those two letters / sounds.
Zamenhof was trying to keep 'familiar look' of words. Since most Europeans are familiar representing of /z^/ sound with letter 'j' the solution was obvious. Using of letter 'z' would be disguiding for all the Europeans except West Slavs, Slovenians, and Croatians.
I do not know why these letter are usefull :
q w x y
what do they have that is "usefull" ?
I cannot see anything....positive.
Q - try to say it .... it has kv or ku so why use some more signs for something that is literaly cluster of TWO SOUNDS, that are K + V.
When you have J why you need to have Y moreover. Or... do not use letter J and have just letter Y (that's another way)
Because when you pronounce letter J - it doesn' have anything together with letter Z, or D. Z have similarity to and not with letter J.
It would be the same as e.g. for cluster of MN you have e.g. ~ or # or anything like that. Some other special sign that would be pronounced as MN.
Or let's say e.g. cluster of letters ST would have special mark /sign as <
or * or |\ or `` or ^ etc. etc.
Q - try to say it .... it has kv or ku so why use some more signs for something that is literaly cluster of TWO SOUNDS, that are K + V.
The letter q is not [kw], qu is.
When you have J why you need to have Y moreover. Or... do not use letter J and have just letter Y (that's another way)
Because when you pronounce letter J - it doesn' have anything together with letter Z, ? or D?. Z have similarity to ? and not with letter J.
Since when do natural langauges assign letters to phonemes "logically"? What should such "logic" look like?
If it's so then you have to have letter QU in some alphabets but no alphabet has letter QU, just letter Q. In alphabets that use letter Q , it is used alone in them - NOT as QU.
And what is then pronunciation of the letter Q ?
I don't care whether a language is written by means of some letters that require Unicode, because Unicode will be always required anyway - to write proper names.
letter without any special meaning : ŭ
There is a difference between u and ŭ: eŭ in eŭro is pronounced as a diphtong, eu in neutila is pronounced as two separate vowels.
ĝ - that basically introduces letters / sounds : dzx / dz', d
In the same way, it is possible to say that c just represents [ts]. But of course, you will aruge that "c" is pronoucned differently than "ts" because your viewpoint is Slavic-centered, not international as required in this case.
the letter "ĵ" has nothing common with the letter "j" as e.g.
A Slavic-centered viewpoint again. Yes, Zamenhof modelled ĉ after and ŝ after , but why the hell should this mean that a circumflexed z should then be modelled after ? Zamenhof intented to invent an international alphabet, not a Slavic one.
Logical and rational alphabet would be something that fulfill all the aspects of regularity and rationality.
On one side you have e.g. letter J that has its own sign and pronunciation.
On the other side (irrational) you have letter J with some "roof" above it.
And the sound of it is totally something different.
Where had Mr.Zamenhof his rational sense ?
I do not want crate something absolute perfect - It doesn't exist. But we could get closer to it and do not accept that was created in all languages hundreds years ago by some singles or small group of people somewhere in Europe or Central Asia.
Not everything that was created in languages has got its logical sense or rationality. We want to create something that is better and more regular in language and that will be much easier for all people. Not to keep strictly what was done somehow and somewhere by someone and we now do not know why.
If we want to stay with our difficulties- then let's tay better with our natural mother tongues and do not attempt to create something that has some sense.
An "internation alphabet" should be international, not 'rational'. 'Rationality' gives nothing to an international languaguage, but familiarity with already existing writing systems does. Nobody would understand what žusto means, but people can guess right what ĵusto or justo mean.
Of course, when they are from the UK, Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania in Europe.
Spanish has this pronunciation as "ch", the Slavs as "J", and the same the Germans, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedish, Baltic countries, Hungarians, Finnish.
So you come out just with these 6 languages as "international pronunciation" ?
But it's not enough.
What is that "chinese transcription" ? Is it for the English and Americans or the rest of the world ?
Everything depends on who you address this transcription. It is different for those who speak English and the rest of the world.
Because the Chinese do not use latin alphabet you cannot simply allege that the chinese use this or that sound transcription for the whole world.
It depends on what country and language you use and what letters and sound that match these letters you and the others use for transcription.
It is different in English, Russian, Czech, Italian, French, Arabic, Hindu, and Cherokee langs.
So you come out just with these 6 languages as "international pronunciation" ?
Do you suggest to base "international pronunciation" on Slovak?
Let's make a little English-Spanish-Esperanto dictionary:
English — Spanish — Esperanto
jargon — jerga — ĵargono
jelly — jalea — ĵeleo
jury — jurado — ĵurio
journal — jornal — ĵurnalo
just — justo — ĵus
Now I ask you again: what would be the best letter for these words from the Spanish point of view? Sure the Spanish j is pronounced in quite different way now, but still the Spanish has this letter where other Western European languages have j pronounced /z^/ ot /dz^/.
Zamenhof understood that pronunciation of different languages is much more distant than orthography, and didn't try to invent letters for sounds — he invented sounds for letters instead. Note Esperanto letters ĵ and ĝ: Zamenhof used them where Western languages have j and g corresponingly. But it created ambiguosity, and he made an artificial distinction: ĵ is pronounced /z^/, and ĝ is pronounced /dz^/. Though there is no reason why it was done this way, not otherwise. (In all the western languages 'soft ĵ' and 'soft ĝ' are the same sounds) — But at least it restored the one-to-one principle.
In Esperanto the orthography is primary and the pronunciation is secondary. And it's much more rational than 'rational alphabet'.
And the Chinese tranliteration is widely used in China — by Chinese. It's taught in Schools, is the base of arrangement of words in many dictionaries etc.
