Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Over at Auxlang I'm often writing about how one of the points that I really like about Ido is how similar it is to two languages I'm fluent in, Japanese and Korean. After learning Ido and going on to Turkish I also found those two to be quite similar as well. Here I'll try to show how a quick example of how Ido differs from English (and most Indo-European languages) in its precision, and how Japanese, Korean and Turkish generally have about this same level of precision.
|English ||Ido||Japanese||Korean||Turkish |
|to come true,|
|genjitsuka sareru koto|
So you can see in most cases the languages match up in their derivation. Some notes:
- Turkish -ism here is actually -ist (ci) plus -ness (lik), so realism is more like realistness.
- The Ido -ar to -o change from a noun to the action of a verb is generally equivalent to removing the k from the end of a verb in Turkish, replacing the da with gi in Korean, and adding koto or slightly changing the end of the verb (like hanasu to hanashi) in Japanese.
- All four languages have a clearer differentiation than English when it comes to transitive and intransitive verbs. After putting suffixes on the end of verbs you can again change them into gerunds in the same way as above (they don't all function like in Ido where there are no exceptions, so don't try to just make up words in Japanese or Korean willy-nilly using this method for example, it'll sound weird).
- The -n case in Ido is also equivalent to the Turkish -i, Japanese wo, and Korean reul, which is nice. This makes it really easy to explain how it works to people from these countries and lets them achieve a bit freer word order than with something like Novial.
- Ido has features that make it more appealing to and easier to explain to people from these countries, and
- Ido's having the level of precision it has is not unnaturally logical. The general consensus against Ido by its detractors (the majority of which do not know anything about the grammar of Japanese/Korean/Turkish and related languages) is that it is unnaturally logical, the brainchild of a mathematician, and too robotically precise. The fact is that languages like English are often so vague ("Eye drops off shelf", "Enraged cow injures farmer with axe", "Squad helps dog bite victim") that this has become the norm we use to compare IALs. It's good to take a good look outside the English bubble every once in a while when looking at the features of an IAL.