![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hi everyone. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this - I'm kind of new to editing, I've only done it a couple times. I was just reading this article, and noticed that the Russian words are transcribed into latin characters. While they still represent Russian words in such a form, I would be more than willing to write the correct Russian words in the Cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps I could have both to aid non-Russian speakers in understanding the pronunciations. What do you think? Unless someone gives me a good reason not to, I think I'd like to add it to help Russian speakers (native or not) better understand the phonetic similarities and differences in Ido. Bill Lava ( talk) 21:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
On this same note, one of the words in the Russian column seemed a bit odd to me. "Kobyla" is supposed to be the Russian word for horse. I lived in Russia (I am an American) for two years and spoke and read Russian every day. I never came across this word as far as I can recall. I looked it up in a dictionary and a closer translation would be mare, but as far as I can tell, Russians uniformly prefer the word "loshad" for horse. I can see how "kobyla" matches up more closely with the Ido root, but is it necessary to make it seem like there is some connection there, when it isn't even with the word that Russians actually use? Bill Lava ( talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
From the statistics page:
"There have been a total of 2 page views, and 38,669 page edits since the wiki was setup. That comes to 2.39 average edits per page, and 0.00 views per edit."
That's obviously REALLY wrong, anyone else get these stats?
much more about Ido grammar can be explained here, such as pronouns, affixes, references to the history of the language looks sloppy in the article itself. Such a comment should be posted on this very talk page.
I recently wrote some more material on Ido's grammar and phonology, continuing the earlier trend of noting contrasts with Esperanto. Not sure if we should keep doing that or switch to describing Ido in itself and relegate the comparisons to another section or even a separate article. But since Ido started as an Esperanto reform project, embedding the comparison in each linguistic section seems to make sense. -- Jim Henry 20:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would like to know about interrogatives/correlatives in Ido. Is it as regular as that of Esperanto (see Esperanto_grammar for a nice table of all 45)? Could this table be added please? MarSch 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no phonological change here, but rather an orthographic one, so I moved where this was covered. Since many of the world's people do not distinguish IPA [v] and [w], in many cases there isn't even a phonetic difference between Ido qu, gu and Esperanto kv, gv (though to an English speaker, of course, they seem completely different). kwami 21:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interesting that the number of people seems to have declined, almost a little surprising considering the general rise in interest in international communication, as well as the rising world population and increased ability in learning and transport--you'd predict a rise in interest (as well as such measures as attendance at the international conference) rather than a fall. ~ Dpr 04:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the best way to gauge the number of speakers would be through the creation of a spider that could go through the web, calculating the total amount of material in all three languages (Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua). That would include old newsgroup postings, Wikipedia, personal home pages, everything. Then at least we could have a relative idea. I used a few search engines last month to see the relative numbers of pages with words that only appear in each language and it looked like Esperanto pages outnumbered Ido ones by anywhere from 12 to 50 times, and sometimes more.
81.91.150.9 changed the first sentence to read "is not a reformed version of .... Esperanto". I'm going to revert that; if 81.91.150.9 wants to offer arguments on the talk page here about why that "not" is justified, go ahead. -- Jim Henry | Talk 23:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
So they decided to do away with a handful of pointless features, like adjective-noun agreement and the need for pronouns to be gender-specific. And they brought back another pointless feature: T-V distinction. Does anybody have any idea why? -- Smjg 09:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Not true: http://members.aol.com/idolinguo/idoesp.html shows most of the changes and there are a number of examples where the Esperanto word is based on the French but has been changed in Ido. The first one that comes to mind is gazolin.o -- benzino. Also, t-v is likely because there are very few languages on the Earth that don't make the distinction, and even English did until fairly recently. It certainly isn't a burden to the student. The necessity to remember whether someone is tu or vu is something to keep in mind when speaking, but to try to present it as a linguistic hurdle is false. 211.202.17.124 00:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Why was the {{ Esperanto}} template removed? The template is for all Esperanto topics, and Ido is an Esperanto topic! Yes, there is a new Ido template (very incomplete, and a copy of the old Esperanto template), but Ido is also linked to Esperanto, and thus qualifies as a topic of it. [[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem is with the largely unrelated template on the Ido page. The assumption is that most users will be here to learn about Ido the language, not a group of Esperanto-related topics. Like I said, try putting an Ethiopia template on the Eritrea page and see how that goes over. Same thing. 211.37.78.63 18:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I solved the issue with the {{ Esperanto}} template. If anyone wants to whine about it now, take a look at the {{ Ido}} template and glance over it. Thanks for the idea! Phil.andy.graves 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Esperanto has ci. Rarely used nowadays perhaps, but it exists, so please leave it in the table. (I suspect that it would be used just as much, or just as little, as Ido's familiar form. It's a user issue, not a language issue.) Ailanto 14:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I added the english text "to go" to the table of grammatical endings, because I found it really distracting to look at the table without knowing what the words meant. As a nonspeaker of both Esperanto and Ido, I think that a table which included all of Esperanto, Ido, and English would be more useful. Of course, if we were doing that, we'd probably want to pick a verb that was regular in English. I've included an example table below; if someone thinks it's a good idea, feel free to fill in the spaces and use it.
Grammatical form | Ido | Esperanto | English |
---|---|---|---|
Singular noun | -o (NOUNo) | NOUN | NOUN |
Plural noun | -i (NOUNi) | -oj (NOUNoj) | -s (NOUNs) |
Adjective | -a (ADJa) | ADJ | -y (ADJy) |
Adverb | -e (ADV) | ADV | -ily (ADJily) |
Adverb | -e (ADV) | ADV | -ily (ADJily) |
Present tense infinitive | -ar (VERBar) | -i (VERBi) | to VERB |
Past tense infinitive | -ir (VERBir) | N/A | N/A |
Future tense infinitive | -or (VERBor) | N/A | N/A |
Present | -as (VERBas) | ESPERANTO | VERB |
Past | -is (VERBis) | ESPERANTO | -ed (VERBed) |
Future | -os (VERBos) | ESPERANTO | will VERB |
Imperative | -ez (VERBez) | "-u" (VERBu) | VERB |
Conditional | -us (VERBus) | ESPERANTO | ENGLISH |
Okay, now that I look at that, I'm not completely convinced that it's an improvement. But if it seems like a good idea, you're welcome to it.
Wow. I hadn't realized how horrible making a table in Wikisyntax is. -- Creidieki 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The article mixes the concept of an International Auxiliary Language with the greater concept of constructed languages (conlangs). In the beginning paragraph, it says:
This may lead readers to think that all conlangs are created with these objectives in mind, which is not true (cf. Quenya and Klingon). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ptcamn ( talk • contribs) 02:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
In the History section, it says:
Again, this seems to imply that Lingua Ignota was an IAL, which is not true. JoaoRicardo 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any way to tell from the spelling where the stress falls on an Ido word? I'm thinking of omnadía but lúndia; if the first is exceptional because it's a compound, while the second isn't, then what do we do with egóismo ? kwami 06:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
One of the links included ( http://ido.view.net.au/kgd/) appears to be down... 218.166.74.98 01:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
the page says that il is the male pronoun (he), and mentions that lu can be used indistinctly. however, the little prince is referred with "la" , and the picture about ana frank diary uses " la diario", etc.. when is la used? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I was showing the wiki to friends and some big tits came up for the article, luckly it was corrected quickly to showcase the ability to clean up vandalism, but I don't think they were convinced.
yeah, i was going to edit out the vandalisim but somebody got to it while i was editing. I think featured articles should be locked to avoid vandalisim. At least it wasnt really nasty stuff.
there's more vandalism up there as od 1 oclock pm est
We don't protect featured articles. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 18:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Yea just watch out for it, vandalism continues went to go fix it but someone else got to it first. Good job with keeping an eye on this page whoever is helping out. Rhettdb2005 19:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I have temporarily semi-protected this page due to persistent vandalism. In order to request unprotection, post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Izehar 21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be called "Ido language", to conform to the other language articles? And what happened to Ido the astronomical body, Ido the mythological character, etc.? (Methinks that the latter has more claim to primacy than the language, BTW.) Jorge Stolfi 00:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Oops, the correct English spelling for the myth & planet is Ida, not Ido. Anyway, "X language" for a language article *is* a Wikipedia standard, isn't it? Jorge Stolfi 12:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The comments on Zamenhof and the reform project of 1894 are incomplete and misleading. I see that today, Dave corrected a dead link to Don Harlow as a way of justifying the "superflous balast" quote. The quote which was put in its place is from an Idist page quoting in one paragraph several different writings of Zamenhof in two different copies of "La Esperantisto" in 1894. No justification is given as to why we should think that Zamenhof supported these changes and that others opposed them. My investigations into the reform project of 1894 have lead me to the opposite conclusion. (I have been known to claim to be the world expert on this subject - and have probably written more *in* the actual reform project than any other person living or dead.)
Also, since this claim is based on some old Idist literature on the subject, it leaves out the important detail that Ido is more like Esperanto than it is like the reform project of 1894. Knowing this, it seems silly to point out that Zamenhof proposed some of the changes which Ido uses - since in the same way, he "proposed" many more which Ido did not use.
On priciple, I do not edit articles in Wiki. Still, I would like to recommend that this bit about the reform project of 1894 be removed from the Ido article until someone more informed about the specific details can contribute.
Thomas Alexander
Not sure who wrote in the other numbers but now that I think about it I could almost name 200 Ido speakers myself from the ones I've interacted with online. I would give at least 500 as the lowest number as there are quite a few old people as well as those who are Esperantists foremost but have learned Ido as well. The actual number is still as unknown as always though. Mithridates 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Neniu parolas Idon, ĝi estas mortinta lingvo. Ĉiam estis estas estos nur unu internacia lingvo. Kial vi ne lernas paroli la Zamenhofan lingvon kaj ni ĉiuj levigu la Verdan Flagon kune!
Does "ka" in any way come from the japanese question work ka? 68.6.112.70 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
So c is still [ts] and a lot is still the same from Esperanto, right? Cameron Nedland 12:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
In the table of pronouns, thou is shown as the familiar English second person pronoun, and you as the formal. Surely this is the wrong way around? Direvus 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did the flag in the article come from? Every other flag Ido flag I've ever seen used light blue (not bluish purple!) and the star had the word "Ido" in black in the center. Why is this one different? 64.195.76.124 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Mithridates restored the following text to the article after I deleted it:
Ignoring the question of why the linguistic educational history of 24 individuals is notable enough to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article, a non-scientific Yahoo! Groups poll is not an encyclopedic source. Furthermore, this piece of trivia fails to meet Wikipedia standards on verifiability as the results of the poll are not visible to people who do not have Yahoo! Groups accounts registered as members of the group Idolisto, membership to which is subject to moderators' approval. This line needs to go. -- Schaefer ( talk) 07:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Waiting for "something a bit better" is waiting for Godot. Ido doesn't attract much academic interest. Considering that there no information has been found in reputable sources for even how many Ido speakers are out there on the Internet, what are the odds of any journal publishing a study of when Ido speakers began studying the language? -- Schaefer ( talk) 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Attention, I have no intention of becoming embroiled in a three-way edit war. If there's no reasonably reliable assessment of the number of Ido speakers then the only correct course of action is to not assert any such number in the article. -- Dissident ( Talk) 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I understand the policy you referenced when removing the numbers, but simply going at the Ido page isn't going to solve the problem. There are a few reasons why this isn't such a simple matter as referring to policy:
For that reason I decided to take a quote from Don Harlow, one of the foremost Esperantists in the world (and certainly no fan of Ido) which states that the number of Ido speakers is somewhere in the thousands, and then add a caveat that the number is a very broad estimate, and explain below the reasons why. If you like we could make the number a bit more general, because in reality 'in the thousands' is as exact as we can get. The less exact the number, the less accurate a source we need. The only thing that concerns me about removing the number is the loss of information on the size and activity of the community - being one of the so-called 'big three', Ido has far more content and activity than languages such as Occidental and Novial, and removing the number would make this less obvious.
Or, if you're really opposed to using a number, perhaps a rank might be possible. Esperanto is certainly the largest, Ido and Interlingua are on the tier below with a similar size and user base, and all the rest are barely alive. There is also a ranking system a German Esperantist developed for IALs based on their content and their activity, from something like 'personal project' to 'mostly functional language' to 'full language' (a language with a self-sustaining community I think) and Ido and Interlingua were a few steps away from full language, meaning that they functioned mostly as languages but were still in danger of dying if something catastrophic were to happen like mass dissension or if a few important figures were to die. Mithridates 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that it feels unsatisfying to make an article state less. However, accuracy should be the main concern here, especially since this is a featured article. Since several separate raw figures are present on the article, it should be left to the readers to do any guessing. -- Dissident ( Talk) 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, but why is it that in the language translation sidebar found throughout Wikipedia, there is no option for Ido? Of course, it is not a major language, but there are those who speak it. After all, given the sheer volume of questions and comments about the article, there are certainly plenty of people who have had the article pique their respective curiosities.
Bealestreet 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on this topic seems to have died down with no consensus. I would like to revive it by asking for the origin of the 2,500 estimate, currently qualified with a link to the community section, which makes no mention of the number. The only estimate provided there is "somewhere in the thousands", which appears in an Usenet posting (I assume it does—no link to this post is provided) by Don Harlow, who, as far as I am able to determine from his personal website, has no history of publication in reputable sources to make his estimate worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Schaefer ( talk) 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the 2,500 figure in the infobox and leaving a link to the community section so that the reader my formulate their own number from the information provided there. I wish to remove Don Harlow's comment as well, as I do not believe he meets the requirements outlined in the official policy on self-published sources to warrant the inclusion of his Usenet posting, but I would like to first achieve some sort of consensus on the issue here. -- Schaefer ( talk) 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Where did that logo come from? I've never seen in it in the ten years I've worked with Ido online. 207.203.80.14 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, where did it come from? This article presents no less than three logos for Ido, with no explanation of where they originate from, what official notable body used them to identify with Ido, etc. All three images were created by Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons editors and released into the public domain, but one can't simply compose some novel arrangement of stars and stripes and put it on the article United States as "an American flag" or "logo for United States". Were these logos used by Ido's creators, or did they arise out of Ido's modern Internet following? -- Schaefer ( talk) 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
whose creators had aspirations that Ido would<c>instead of<c.>created to
langmaker.com is blocking me; maybe someone set me up the bomb.
As an exlinguistics major, aspire can be a transistive verb, as language can change.
100110100
08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As someone else from another site stated on the change:
"Created to become" does not imply success, it implies the reason for its creation. There's no POV there. My shirt was "created to be worn" - doesn't mean that it's being worn, is being worn by me or anybody else. It means that a person thought "I will make this, and somebody will wear it" and then created the shirt, nothing more. In instances of clear POV you'll need to put up a POV template and make the case. If you're simply looking for different wording there are tons of ways of doing so without making the lead sentence that bloated. The comma conjunction also denotes a second subject and there are recommendations to make the lead sentence even shorter than the one before you changed it:
Shorter is always better.
Mithridates 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Today is the celebration for the creation of Ido, one of the most important events in the history of the conauxlang movement. Happy birthday, Ido! :) (Comment written by someone who is not an Ido speaker.) -- Antonielly 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple stubs on eo-wiki might be of minor interest:
I doubt any of these deserve articles of their own, but perhaps they might be worth mention here. kwami ( talk) 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the article leans a little bit in support of Ido. Someone should include criticisms of the language. I can think of several, though I am no linguist or Ido expert. Yesitsnot ( talk) 04:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hi everyone. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this - I'm kind of new to editing, I've only done it a couple times. I was just reading this article, and noticed that the Russian words are transcribed into latin characters. While they still represent Russian words in such a form, I would be more than willing to write the correct Russian words in the Cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps I could have both to aid non-Russian speakers in understanding the pronunciations. What do you think? Unless someone gives me a good reason not to, I think I'd like to add it to help Russian speakers (native or not) better understand the phonetic similarities and differences in Ido. Bill Lava ( talk) 21:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
On this same note, one of the words in the Russian column seemed a bit odd to me. "Kobyla" is supposed to be the Russian word for horse. I lived in Russia (I am an American) for two years and spoke and read Russian every day. I never came across this word as far as I can recall. I looked it up in a dictionary and a closer translation would be mare, but as far as I can tell, Russians uniformly prefer the word "loshad" for horse. I can see how "kobyla" matches up more closely with the Ido root, but is it necessary to make it seem like there is some connection there, when it isn't even with the word that Russians actually use? Bill Lava ( talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
From the statistics page:
"There have been a total of 2 page views, and 38,669 page edits since the wiki was setup. That comes to 2.39 average edits per page, and 0.00 views per edit."
That's obviously REALLY wrong, anyone else get these stats?
much more about Ido grammar can be explained here, such as pronouns, affixes, references to the history of the language looks sloppy in the article itself. Such a comment should be posted on this very talk page.
I recently wrote some more material on Ido's grammar and phonology, continuing the earlier trend of noting contrasts with Esperanto. Not sure if we should keep doing that or switch to describing Ido in itself and relegate the comparisons to another section or even a separate article. But since Ido started as an Esperanto reform project, embedding the comparison in each linguistic section seems to make sense. -- Jim Henry 20:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would like to know about interrogatives/correlatives in Ido. Is it as regular as that of Esperanto (see Esperanto_grammar for a nice table of all 45)? Could this table be added please? MarSch 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no phonological change here, but rather an orthographic one, so I moved where this was covered. Since many of the world's people do not distinguish IPA [v] and [w], in many cases there isn't even a phonetic difference between Ido qu, gu and Esperanto kv, gv (though to an English speaker, of course, they seem completely different). kwami 21:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interesting that the number of people seems to have declined, almost a little surprising considering the general rise in interest in international communication, as well as the rising world population and increased ability in learning and transport--you'd predict a rise in interest (as well as such measures as attendance at the international conference) rather than a fall. ~ Dpr 04:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the best way to gauge the number of speakers would be through the creation of a spider that could go through the web, calculating the total amount of material in all three languages (Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua). That would include old newsgroup postings, Wikipedia, personal home pages, everything. Then at least we could have a relative idea. I used a few search engines last month to see the relative numbers of pages with words that only appear in each language and it looked like Esperanto pages outnumbered Ido ones by anywhere from 12 to 50 times, and sometimes more.
81.91.150.9 changed the first sentence to read "is not a reformed version of .... Esperanto". I'm going to revert that; if 81.91.150.9 wants to offer arguments on the talk page here about why that "not" is justified, go ahead. -- Jim Henry | Talk 23:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
So they decided to do away with a handful of pointless features, like adjective-noun agreement and the need for pronouns to be gender-specific. And they brought back another pointless feature: T-V distinction. Does anybody have any idea why? -- Smjg 09:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Not true: http://members.aol.com/idolinguo/idoesp.html shows most of the changes and there are a number of examples where the Esperanto word is based on the French but has been changed in Ido. The first one that comes to mind is gazolin.o -- benzino. Also, t-v is likely because there are very few languages on the Earth that don't make the distinction, and even English did until fairly recently. It certainly isn't a burden to the student. The necessity to remember whether someone is tu or vu is something to keep in mind when speaking, but to try to present it as a linguistic hurdle is false. 211.202.17.124 00:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Why was the {{ Esperanto}} template removed? The template is for all Esperanto topics, and Ido is an Esperanto topic! Yes, there is a new Ido template (very incomplete, and a copy of the old Esperanto template), but Ido is also linked to Esperanto, and thus qualifies as a topic of it. [[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem is with the largely unrelated template on the Ido page. The assumption is that most users will be here to learn about Ido the language, not a group of Esperanto-related topics. Like I said, try putting an Ethiopia template on the Eritrea page and see how that goes over. Same thing. 211.37.78.63 18:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I solved the issue with the {{ Esperanto}} template. If anyone wants to whine about it now, take a look at the {{ Ido}} template and glance over it. Thanks for the idea! Phil.andy.graves 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Esperanto has ci. Rarely used nowadays perhaps, but it exists, so please leave it in the table. (I suspect that it would be used just as much, or just as little, as Ido's familiar form. It's a user issue, not a language issue.) Ailanto 14:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I added the english text "to go" to the table of grammatical endings, because I found it really distracting to look at the table without knowing what the words meant. As a nonspeaker of both Esperanto and Ido, I think that a table which included all of Esperanto, Ido, and English would be more useful. Of course, if we were doing that, we'd probably want to pick a verb that was regular in English. I've included an example table below; if someone thinks it's a good idea, feel free to fill in the spaces and use it.
Grammatical form | Ido | Esperanto | English |
---|---|---|---|
Singular noun | -o (NOUNo) | NOUN | NOUN |
Plural noun | -i (NOUNi) | -oj (NOUNoj) | -s (NOUNs) |
Adjective | -a (ADJa) | ADJ | -y (ADJy) |
Adverb | -e (ADV) | ADV | -ily (ADJily) |
Adverb | -e (ADV) | ADV | -ily (ADJily) |
Present tense infinitive | -ar (VERBar) | -i (VERBi) | to VERB |
Past tense infinitive | -ir (VERBir) | N/A | N/A |
Future tense infinitive | -or (VERBor) | N/A | N/A |
Present | -as (VERBas) | ESPERANTO | VERB |
Past | -is (VERBis) | ESPERANTO | -ed (VERBed) |
Future | -os (VERBos) | ESPERANTO | will VERB |
Imperative | -ez (VERBez) | "-u" (VERBu) | VERB |
Conditional | -us (VERBus) | ESPERANTO | ENGLISH |
Okay, now that I look at that, I'm not completely convinced that it's an improvement. But if it seems like a good idea, you're welcome to it.
Wow. I hadn't realized how horrible making a table in Wikisyntax is. -- Creidieki 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The article mixes the concept of an International Auxiliary Language with the greater concept of constructed languages (conlangs). In the beginning paragraph, it says:
This may lead readers to think that all conlangs are created with these objectives in mind, which is not true (cf. Quenya and Klingon). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ptcamn ( talk • contribs) 02:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
In the History section, it says:
Again, this seems to imply that Lingua Ignota was an IAL, which is not true. JoaoRicardo 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any way to tell from the spelling where the stress falls on an Ido word? I'm thinking of omnadía but lúndia; if the first is exceptional because it's a compound, while the second isn't, then what do we do with egóismo ? kwami 06:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
One of the links included ( http://ido.view.net.au/kgd/) appears to be down... 218.166.74.98 01:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
the page says that il is the male pronoun (he), and mentions that lu can be used indistinctly. however, the little prince is referred with "la" , and the picture about ana frank diary uses " la diario", etc.. when is la used? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I was showing the wiki to friends and some big tits came up for the article, luckly it was corrected quickly to showcase the ability to clean up vandalism, but I don't think they were convinced.
yeah, i was going to edit out the vandalisim but somebody got to it while i was editing. I think featured articles should be locked to avoid vandalisim. At least it wasnt really nasty stuff.
there's more vandalism up there as od 1 oclock pm est
We don't protect featured articles. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 18:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Yea just watch out for it, vandalism continues went to go fix it but someone else got to it first. Good job with keeping an eye on this page whoever is helping out. Rhettdb2005 19:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I have temporarily semi-protected this page due to persistent vandalism. In order to request unprotection, post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Izehar 21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be called "Ido language", to conform to the other language articles? And what happened to Ido the astronomical body, Ido the mythological character, etc.? (Methinks that the latter has more claim to primacy than the language, BTW.) Jorge Stolfi 00:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Oops, the correct English spelling for the myth & planet is Ida, not Ido. Anyway, "X language" for a language article *is* a Wikipedia standard, isn't it? Jorge Stolfi 12:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The comments on Zamenhof and the reform project of 1894 are incomplete and misleading. I see that today, Dave corrected a dead link to Don Harlow as a way of justifying the "superflous balast" quote. The quote which was put in its place is from an Idist page quoting in one paragraph several different writings of Zamenhof in two different copies of "La Esperantisto" in 1894. No justification is given as to why we should think that Zamenhof supported these changes and that others opposed them. My investigations into the reform project of 1894 have lead me to the opposite conclusion. (I have been known to claim to be the world expert on this subject - and have probably written more *in* the actual reform project than any other person living or dead.)
Also, since this claim is based on some old Idist literature on the subject, it leaves out the important detail that Ido is more like Esperanto than it is like the reform project of 1894. Knowing this, it seems silly to point out that Zamenhof proposed some of the changes which Ido uses - since in the same way, he "proposed" many more which Ido did not use.
On priciple, I do not edit articles in Wiki. Still, I would like to recommend that this bit about the reform project of 1894 be removed from the Ido article until someone more informed about the specific details can contribute.
Thomas Alexander
Not sure who wrote in the other numbers but now that I think about it I could almost name 200 Ido speakers myself from the ones I've interacted with online. I would give at least 500 as the lowest number as there are quite a few old people as well as those who are Esperantists foremost but have learned Ido as well. The actual number is still as unknown as always though. Mithridates 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Neniu parolas Idon, ĝi estas mortinta lingvo. Ĉiam estis estas estos nur unu internacia lingvo. Kial vi ne lernas paroli la Zamenhofan lingvon kaj ni ĉiuj levigu la Verdan Flagon kune!
Does "ka" in any way come from the japanese question work ka? 68.6.112.70 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
So c is still [ts] and a lot is still the same from Esperanto, right? Cameron Nedland 12:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
In the table of pronouns, thou is shown as the familiar English second person pronoun, and you as the formal. Surely this is the wrong way around? Direvus 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did the flag in the article come from? Every other flag Ido flag I've ever seen used light blue (not bluish purple!) and the star had the word "Ido" in black in the center. Why is this one different? 64.195.76.124 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Mithridates restored the following text to the article after I deleted it:
Ignoring the question of why the linguistic educational history of 24 individuals is notable enough to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article, a non-scientific Yahoo! Groups poll is not an encyclopedic source. Furthermore, this piece of trivia fails to meet Wikipedia standards on verifiability as the results of the poll are not visible to people who do not have Yahoo! Groups accounts registered as members of the group Idolisto, membership to which is subject to moderators' approval. This line needs to go. -- Schaefer ( talk) 07:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Waiting for "something a bit better" is waiting for Godot. Ido doesn't attract much academic interest. Considering that there no information has been found in reputable sources for even how many Ido speakers are out there on the Internet, what are the odds of any journal publishing a study of when Ido speakers began studying the language? -- Schaefer ( talk) 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Attention, I have no intention of becoming embroiled in a three-way edit war. If there's no reasonably reliable assessment of the number of Ido speakers then the only correct course of action is to not assert any such number in the article. -- Dissident ( Talk) 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I understand the policy you referenced when removing the numbers, but simply going at the Ido page isn't going to solve the problem. There are a few reasons why this isn't such a simple matter as referring to policy:
For that reason I decided to take a quote from Don Harlow, one of the foremost Esperantists in the world (and certainly no fan of Ido) which states that the number of Ido speakers is somewhere in the thousands, and then add a caveat that the number is a very broad estimate, and explain below the reasons why. If you like we could make the number a bit more general, because in reality 'in the thousands' is as exact as we can get. The less exact the number, the less accurate a source we need. The only thing that concerns me about removing the number is the loss of information on the size and activity of the community - being one of the so-called 'big three', Ido has far more content and activity than languages such as Occidental and Novial, and removing the number would make this less obvious.
Or, if you're really opposed to using a number, perhaps a rank might be possible. Esperanto is certainly the largest, Ido and Interlingua are on the tier below with a similar size and user base, and all the rest are barely alive. There is also a ranking system a German Esperantist developed for IALs based on their content and their activity, from something like 'personal project' to 'mostly functional language' to 'full language' (a language with a self-sustaining community I think) and Ido and Interlingua were a few steps away from full language, meaning that they functioned mostly as languages but were still in danger of dying if something catastrophic were to happen like mass dissension or if a few important figures were to die. Mithridates 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that it feels unsatisfying to make an article state less. However, accuracy should be the main concern here, especially since this is a featured article. Since several separate raw figures are present on the article, it should be left to the readers to do any guessing. -- Dissident ( Talk) 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, but why is it that in the language translation sidebar found throughout Wikipedia, there is no option for Ido? Of course, it is not a major language, but there are those who speak it. After all, given the sheer volume of questions and comments about the article, there are certainly plenty of people who have had the article pique their respective curiosities.
Bealestreet 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on this topic seems to have died down with no consensus. I would like to revive it by asking for the origin of the 2,500 estimate, currently qualified with a link to the community section, which makes no mention of the number. The only estimate provided there is "somewhere in the thousands", which appears in an Usenet posting (I assume it does—no link to this post is provided) by Don Harlow, who, as far as I am able to determine from his personal website, has no history of publication in reputable sources to make his estimate worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Schaefer ( talk) 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the 2,500 figure in the infobox and leaving a link to the community section so that the reader my formulate their own number from the information provided there. I wish to remove Don Harlow's comment as well, as I do not believe he meets the requirements outlined in the official policy on self-published sources to warrant the inclusion of his Usenet posting, but I would like to first achieve some sort of consensus on the issue here. -- Schaefer ( talk) 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Where did that logo come from? I've never seen in it in the ten years I've worked with Ido online. 207.203.80.14 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, where did it come from? This article presents no less than three logos for Ido, with no explanation of where they originate from, what official notable body used them to identify with Ido, etc. All three images were created by Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons editors and released into the public domain, but one can't simply compose some novel arrangement of stars and stripes and put it on the article United States as "an American flag" or "logo for United States". Were these logos used by Ido's creators, or did they arise out of Ido's modern Internet following? -- Schaefer ( talk) 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
whose creators had aspirations that Ido would<c>instead of<c.>created to
langmaker.com is blocking me; maybe someone set me up the bomb.
As an exlinguistics major, aspire can be a transistive verb, as language can change.
100110100
08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As someone else from another site stated on the change:
"Created to become" does not imply success, it implies the reason for its creation. There's no POV there. My shirt was "created to be worn" - doesn't mean that it's being worn, is being worn by me or anybody else. It means that a person thought "I will make this, and somebody will wear it" and then created the shirt, nothing more. In instances of clear POV you'll need to put up a POV template and make the case. If you're simply looking for different wording there are tons of ways of doing so without making the lead sentence that bloated. The comma conjunction also denotes a second subject and there are recommendations to make the lead sentence even shorter than the one before you changed it:
Shorter is always better.
Mithridates 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Today is the celebration for the creation of Ido, one of the most important events in the history of the conauxlang movement. Happy birthday, Ido! :) (Comment written by someone who is not an Ido speaker.) -- Antonielly 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple stubs on eo-wiki might be of minor interest:
I doubt any of these deserve articles of their own, but perhaps they might be worth mention here. kwami ( talk) 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the article leans a little bit in support of Ido. Someone should include criticisms of the language. I can think of several, though I am no linguist or Ido expert. Yesitsnot ( talk) 04:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)