Talk:Neo language

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Constructed languages Mid‑importance

	Constructed languages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Neo (constructed language) was copied or moved into Runic Mimpfe with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Untitled[edit]

This seems an odd issue to get into a disagreement about.

Neo's grammar explicitly resembles that of Esperanto or Ido in the sense that it uses vowels endings to mark parts of speech and (A-E-O = adjective-adverb-noun) and verb tenses (AR-IR-OR-US = present-past-future-conditional, a minor variation on Ido/Esp. AS-IS-OS-US). These clearly come from Esperanto and/or Ido, since they are an invention of Zamenhof's. On the other hand, it's impossible to say whether Esp. or Ido is the source these features, since Alfandari unquestionably knew both languages. Certainly Esperanto is the ultimate source, whether or not they mediated by Ido. On the other hand I don't see any Occidental influence that can't be explained as a general reliance on general European language conventions.

As for Interlingua influence, there are some minor and probably chance resemblences with some pronouns. The plural -S is just standard European. The prepositions don't seem like Interlingua at all, more like Ido, I'd say - though I don't know Ido well.

If I'm missing something here, please point it out to me.CJGB (Chris) 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

It would be convenient if there is anybody who would translate grammar section from the Russian wiki.--ArkinAardvark (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

First, this article has been online for several years (just look its history). Second, other wikis have it. Third, it is notable as an example and a part of the international auxiliary language movement history. Fourth, three books are quoted, as well as grammar - there are enough references.

So, if this one is erased all other, except maybe Esperanto, can ber erased too because they ˝are not important˝; this article has its validity and place on Wikipedia.

Please, take it a bit more easy with erasing - I'm not spamming, just trying to contribute the conlang themes, as you can see on my user page.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkinAardvark (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French or English as source?[edit]

I have clarified in the introduction that the basic word stock is predominantly Romance, cf. the verbs ami, kanti, vidi, ludi, skribi, the only clearly influenced by English being gi (to go), probably because "i" already means "to have". 46.238.126.199 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neo (constructed language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044938/http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/EBook/chap03.html to http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/EBook/chap03.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]