On this page you will find a few articles from `Progreso', the official
journal of the UNIONO POR LA LINGUO INTERNACIONA IDO (Union for the International Language Ido). I have translated them into English one paragraph at a time to make them easy to follow. As well as articles on general matters, I have tried to select articles which discuss the language itself, either its positive aspects or the few points on which there is still some discussion.
There have been visitors to this page. Last updated 26-8-97.
Nia planeto posedas multa-nombra traci e restaji di civilizuri Indiana, Maya, Greka, Egiptiana. Ita civilizuri havis certena savi sama-nivela kam le nia en multa domeni; ne esas ne-posibla ke inteligenta enti veninta del spaco docis ita populi nam en omna restaji, skribaji, desegnis, rakonti e legendi, ita homi pos-lasis mesaji pri la existado di ca enti veninta del cielo e konsiderata kom dei.
Our planet possesses numerous traces and remnants of the Indian, Mayan, Greek and Egyptian civilizations. Those civilizations had certain pieces of knowledge on the same level as ours in many areas; it is not impossible that intelligent beings from space taught these peoples, for in all remnants, writings, pictures, stories and legends, these people left behind messages about the existence of beings who had come from the sky and were considered as gods.
Tale on trovas en la "volvajo di La Mekka" ica indikajo: "Muliero asertis a sua spozo, ke el ne havabis relati kun la guardi di la cielo". La profeto Henoch reprochis la guardi di la cielo jacir kun la mulieri e la filiini di la homi.
Thus we find in the "roll of The Mekka" this indication: "A woman asserted to her husband that she had not had relations with the guardians of the sky". The prophet Henoch reproached the guardians of the sky as having laid on the women and the daughters of the people.
Tre anciena Amerikana Indiana tribuo facis pikturi qui montris stranja enti venante de brilanta suno e dis-donante utensili plu bona kam olti quin la tribuo posedis til ta tempo. Ita enti havis nekredebla forteso e lia magiala povi esis plu forta kam fairo e fulmino. Pos helpir ta populo e konsilir ol, li departis.
A very ancient American Indian tribe made pictures which showed strange beings from a bright sun giving out tools better than those which the tribe possessed till that time. These beings had incredible strength and their magical powers were stronger than fire and lightning. After having helped this people and advised it, they left.
Longa-tempe ante la Kristana ero, granda-nombra desegni pri fluganta mashini facesis. Esas astoniva ke preske sama-tempe, en multa loki di nia planeto, homi di omna rasi havis la sama inspiro od imaginajo! Ecepte se li desegnis fenomeno vidita o naracita. La mikra volvaji SUMERANA, qui esis plu dika kam alumetuyi montras ucelo-homi e fairala globi en la cielo.
A long time before the Christian era, a great many designs of flying machines were made. It is surprising that at almost the same time, in many places on our planet, men of all races had the same inspiration or imagination! Except if they depicted phenomena which had been seen or told. The small rolls SUMERANA, which were thicker than matchboxes show birdmen and fiery globes in the sky.
Quon ni povas pensar pri Maya graburi qui montras objeti en la cielo, fairala globi o mem ento qua astonigive tre similas nia kosmonauti? Il portas vesti necesa por la trans-irado di la spaco kun lampo sur la kapo ed ula-speca aparato sur la dorso. Ka aernavi veninta de la kosmo e kontenanta homo-simila enti arivis reale sur la Tero? Se ne, quale explikar ita Maya desegnuri? Ka vu savas ke la "Maya-i" havis observatorii identa a le nia?
What can we think about Mayan engravings which show objects in the sky, fiery globes or even a being who is surprisingly very similar to our cosmonauts? He is wearing clothes necessary for travel through space with a light on his head and some kind of aparatus on his back. Did aircraft from the cosmos containing man-like beings really arrive on the Earth? If not, how are these Mayan designs to be explained? Do you know that the Mayans had observatories identical to ours?
Nia nuntempa cienco havas problemi pri la propulso-moyeni e pri la tempo por diplasar su en la spaco. Ni esas kapabla atingar la rapideso di la lumo ma lo ne suficas por voyaji en la kosmo. La skriburi di la Biblio aludas la kontrakto dil tempo: "Mil yari esos avan tu quale la dio qua pasis hiere". Semblas evidenta ke civilizuri qui posedas cienco plu avancita kam o diferanta de la nia, savas diplasar su en la universo per ludar pri la tempo o pri jemela universi.
Our current science has problems concerning the propulsion method and concerning the time needed for travelling in space. We are capable of reaching the speed of light but it is not enough for travels in the cosmos. The writings of the Bible allude to the contraction of time: "A thousand years will be before you like the day that passed yesterday". It seems evident that civilizations which possess a science more advanced than or different from ours, know how to displace themselves in the universe by playing with time or with twin universes.
En Peru, la petri di Ica esas vera enigmato. Kelka ek ta petri rekuperesis en sepulteyi ma dum la deskovrado, la exploristi ne atencis oli. Mili de ta petri pose trovesis kande la rivero Ica chanjis sua lito. Ita petri restas quale ilustrata libri, testi di obliviata civilizuro. Kelka ek li vidigas yena ceni: evento de operaco di la kordio, di la kranio. Anke on povas regardar dinosauri, mondo-mapi, viro kun lupo, viro kun lorno, fluganta mashini, e tale pluse... Ica petri evas 3000 yari! E tamen nia civilizeso deskovris la lorno erste 400 yari ante nun!
In Peru, the stones of Ica are true enigma. Some of these stones were recovered in burial sites, but during the discovery the researchers did not pay any attention to them. Thousands of these stones were found afterwards when the river changed its bed. These stones remain like illustrated books, witnesses of a forgotten civilization. Some of them showed these scenes: the event of an operation on the heart, on the skull. Also we can look at dinosaurs, world-maps, a man with a magnifying glass, a man with a small telescope, flying machines, and so on... These stones are 3000 years old! And nevertheless our civilization did not discover the telescope until 400 years ago!
La questiono esas yena, ka viziteri de la spaco reale venis sur tero yarmili ante nun, ka li vizitas ni ankore nun? Omnube en la mondo parolesas pri atesti qui raportas pri la aparo NIFO-i (Ne Identigita Fluganta Objeti). Pro quo enti, yarmili ante nun, agis sur pasinta civilizuri e nun pasiva? Forsan ye ula dio plu proxima kam ni kredas, ni havos respondo.
The question is here, did visitors from space really come to Earth millenia ago, do they still visit us now? Everywhere in the world there is talk of witnesses who report the appearance of UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects). Why did beings, millenia ago, act on past civilizations and are now passive. Perhaps some day nearer than we think, we will have an answer.
Esas bazala principo di Ido ke por singla koncepto existas nur un vorto. Exemple, por la vorto LEG/JAMBE/BEIN/GAMBA/PIERNA ni havas GAMBO en Ido, vorto kun un senco nevariebla. Tamen, kande ni konsideras personala pronomi ni trovas ke uli havas alternativa formi: IL ed ILU, EL ed ELU, OL ed OLU. Ma to quo kelke astonas esas ke la restanta personala pronomi havas nur un formo: ME, TU, VU, NI, VI, LI. Me konsideras tala neregulozeso kom kontre logiko.
It is a basic principle of Ido that for a single concept there exists only one word. For example, for the word LEG/JAMBE/BEIN/GAMBA/PIERNA we have GAMBO in Ido, a word with an invariable sense. Nevertheless, when we consider personal pronouns we find that some have alternative forms: IL and ILU, EL and ELU, OL and OLU. But what slightly surprises is that the remaining personal pronouns have only one form: ME, TU, VU, NI, VI, LI. I consider such irregularity as contrary to logic.
Me propozas supresar ILU, ELU, OLU. Lore ni havus komplete reguloza sistemo di personala pronomi:
ME, TU, VU, IL, EL, OL, NI, VI, LI.
Fakte, en "Grammaire Complete de la Langue Internacionale Ido" en 1907, Louis de Beaufront ofris la Delegaciono la sequanta:
ME, TU (familiara), VO (respektoza), IL, EL, OL, NU, VU, LI (tri genri)
La vorti ILU, ELU, OLU ne existis tatempe.
I propose suppressing ILU, ELU, OLU. Then we would have a completely regular system of personal pronouns:
ME, TU, VU, IL, EL, OL, NI, VI, LI.
In fact, in "Grammaire Complete de la Langue Internacionale Ido" in 1907, Louis de Beaufront offered the Delegation the following:
ME, TU (familiar), VO (respectful), IL, EL, OL, NU, VU, LI (three genders)
The words ILU, ELU, OLU did not exist at that time.
Pluse, en "Raporto pri la laboroj de la Konstanta Komisio" (Progreso, nro. 1, 1908) ni lektas ke: "...La pronomoj personaj estos en unnombro ME, TU, VU, IL, EL, OL, en multnombroj NI, VI, LI, (por la tri genroj); kaj, kun distingo de genro lau bezono: ILI, ELI, OLI..."
Furthermore, in "Report on the work of the Permanent Commission" (Progreso, no. 1, 1908) we read that: "...The personal pronouns will be in the singular ME, TU, VU, IL, EL, OL, in the plural NI, VI, LI, (for the three genders); and, with distinction of gender according to need: ILI, ELI, OLI..."
Evidente la introdukto dil alternativi ILU, ELU, OLU, venis plu tarde, e semblante kun nula klara justifiko. Fine, me propozas retenar la existanta LU, kom formo nevariebla, uzata por la tri genri kande la preciza genro esas ne klara, exemple: "Se la lektero deziras plusa detali, lu (to esas, il od el) turnez a pagino..."
Evidently the introduction of the alternatives ILU, ELU, OLU, came later, and apparently with no clear justification. Finally, I propose retaining the existing LU, as an invariable form, used for the three genders when the precise gender is not clear, for example: "If the reader would like more details, lu (that is, he or she) should turn to page..."
Por obtenar personala adjektivi de IL, EL, OL ni devas nur strikte sequar la regulo, adjutante -A. Do ni derivas ILA, ELA, OLA. La kompleta listo di posedala personala adjektivi lore esus:
MEA, TUA, VUA, ILA, ELA, OLA, NIA, VIA, LIA, LUA.
Do, tre simpla e tote reguloza. Me esus interesata saveskar l'opiniono di altra Idisti.
To obtain personal adjectives from IL, EL, OL we need only strictly follow the rule, adding -A. So we derive ILA, ELA, OLA. The complete list of possessive personal adjectives would then be:
MEA, TUA, VUA, ILA, ELA, OLA, NIA, VIA, LIA, LUA.
So, very simple and totally regular. I would be interested to find out the opinion of other Idists.
L'amiko Tom Lang deziras opinioni pri la propozi dil artiklo sua pri la pronomi. Nu! Yen! nul dubito esas posibla; ta sugesti esas aprobenda sen hezito.
Our friend Tom Lang would like opinions on the proposals of his article concerning pronouns. Now! Here! no doubt it is possible; these suggestions are to be approved without hesitation.
Ma unesme ni devas laudar lua sagaceso. De plura yari on konstatas esforci por ameliori, prudenta ma ferma, en la strukturo dil idala idiomo. Ed ofte oli konsistas ek explori en texti dil unesma periodo: kande on studias oli on deskovras ya ke plura modifiki esis enduktanta pro motivi, qui tote desaparis. Tale esas la kazo exemple dil formi "ista, isto", e lo sama eventis pri la pronomi.
But first we should applaud his wisdom. For several years we have made efforts for improvements, prudent but firm, in the structure of the Ido idiom. And often they consist of researches in texts of the first period: when one studies them one indeed discovers that several modifications were introduced for a reason which has completely disappeared. Such is the case for example of the forms "ista, isto", and the same happened with the pronouns.
En Ido-Vivo No. 2 de 1989 trovesas expliki detaloza. Esus ne-posibla insertar oli hike, nam oli kontenas plu kam cent linei.
In Ido-Vivo No. 2 from 1989 is found a detailed explanation. It would be impossible to include them here, since they contain more than a hundred lines.
Rezume: la formi "ila, ela, ola" esis en l'unesma projekto. Ma lore on uzis pluralo por la posedala pronomi, e konseque konfundo esus posibla: "ili, eli, oli" esus samtempe plurali di: "il, el, ol" e di "ila, ela, ola", to quo esus nociva.
In summary: the forms "ila, ela, ola" were in the first project. But then one used a plural for the possessive pronouns, and consequently confusion would be possible: "ili, eli, oli" would be at the same time plurals of: "il, el, ol" and "ila, ela, ola", which would be harmful.
Ta motivo ne plus existas e, pos konstatir lo, multa eminenta Idisti, inter qui Janko, Meazzini, e recente Nik ap Glyn propozis ri-admisar la formi: "ila, ela, ola". Parenteze ni remarkez, ke Couturat ipsa skribis: "ona", (ed "onua") "esus certe reguloza e tute admisebla".
This motive no longer exists and, after having established it, many eminent Idists, among whom were Janko, Meazzini, and recently Nik ap Glyn proposed readmitting the forms: "ila, ela, ola". As an aside we should remark that Couturat himself wrote: "ona", (and "onua") "would certainly be regular and quite admissable".
Pri la formi "ilu, elu, olu" tamen on ne povas esar tante kategorika: li restas utila, partikulare por inversigo, nam "iln, eln, oln" esus desfacila en certena landi. Yen exemplo: "Elun il amis dum sua tota vivo".
About the forms "ilu, elu, olu" though one can not be so categorical: they remain useful, particularly for inversion, since "iln, eln, oln" would be difficult in certain countries. Here is an example: "Elun il amis dum sua tota vivo".
Ma evidente on ne povas falar en olima eroro e "supresar" vorti o formi; ton on facas en nula linguo! La bona metodo esas konsiderar oli "arkaika" e pozar oli en suplementa parto di detaloza gramatiko. L'arkaika vorti e formi esas en omna linguo la plezuro dil literaturisti e poeti. Oli esas quaze testi, quaze ancestri, qui ri-arivas por donar charmo ed ornar agreable.
But evidently we can not fall into a previous error and "suppress" words or forms; this is not done in any language! The good method is to consider them "archaic" and put them in a supplemental part of a detailed grammar. The archaic words and forms are in every language the pleasure of writers and poets. They are almost witnesses, almost ancestors, which come back to give charm and decorate agreably.
Omnakaze ni salutas la nova fervoro qua incitas nun a ri-pensar serioze problemi longatempe neglijita. To esas bona signo.
In any case we salute the new fervour which incites us now to rethink seriously problems neglected for a long time. That is a good sign.
La artiklon skribita da amiko Tom Lang pri "Unasenceso - bazala principo" me lektis kun granda intereso, tante plu ke en ol detaloze acentizesas du chefa atributi remarkinda qui karakterizas Idolinguo: la klareso e la flexebleso. Unaparte la analizo tre instruktiva esas absolute korekta segun la logiko e la bazala principo di la autori di Ido. Altraparte me persone prizas la existo di plura expres-manieri, la libereso en la linguo, ca-kaze: "il" same kam "ilu" e c., quankam ca uzo esas kontre la principo fundamentala; por "ca/ica", "ta/ita" komprenende valoras lo sama.
The article written by our friend Tom Lang on "Monosignifigance - a basic principle" I read with great interest, even more so because in it detailed accent is given to two chief remarkable attributes which characterize the Ido language: clarity and flexibility. On one hand the very instructive analysis is absolutely correct according to the basic principle of the authors of Ido. On the other hand, I personally value the existence of several modes of expression, the freedom in the language, such as: "il" the same as "ilu" etc., although this use is contrary to the fundamental principle; for "ca/ica", "ta/ita" understandably the same thing holds.
Tre gratitudoza me esas por la ravisanta flexebleso di Ido, por la diversa formi variebla, nam li sempre itere aparas a me kom tre favoroza ed extreme avantajoza en la kompozado di Ido-poemi relate la ritmo di la verso e la eufonio di la linguo. Konseque de to me pensas ke "ilu, elu, olu" ne devas supresesar, ma omna-kaze mantenesar.
Very grateful I am for the ravishing[?] flexibility of Ido, for the diverse and variable forms, for they always again appear to me as very favourable and extremely advantagous in the composition of Ido poems in relation to the rhythm of the verse and the euphony of the language. Consequently from this I think that "ilu, elu, olu" should not be suppressed, but anyway maintained.
Ni devas ne esar skrupuloza ed angoroza en la praktiko di nia linguo, nek ligar ni per tro strikta reguli. Quale Sioro Dudouy dicis tre juste, on ne questionez sempre:
We must not be scrupulous and angry in the practice of our language, nor tie ourselves up with too strict rules. As Mr. Dudouy said very rightly, we should not ask always:
Se la sama penso povas expresesar per diversa manieri, ico nule esas defekto di nia linguo, ma vera richeso e komodeso. Pro quo on supresus ol per reguli ne-utila, jenanta ed arbitrala? Konkluzo: Ni sempre esez liberala, ni ne divenez pedanta!
If the same thought can be expressed by different means, this is not at all a defect of our language, but true richness and convenience. Why would we suppress it with useless, annoying and arbitrary rules? Conclusion: Let us always be liberal, let us not become pedantic!