> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bartlett > On Tue, 22 May 2007, [log in to unmask] wrote: > > > [most trimmed] > > > Yes, they definitely need to just work on selling Ido on its own > > merits rather than trying to leech off the E-o movement. I can > > see where marketing to E-o users may make some sense because > > these people have already demonstrated and interest in a > > constructed language, but that shouldn't be the sole focus. > > I have long maintained that it is a strategic blunder to try to market > Ido as "reformed Esperanto" or "improved Esperanto." Recently I have > been critiquing some of the documentation for Lingwa de Planeta now > being translated into English. I remarked to Dmitry Ivanov my opinion > that the documentation should not go around touting what is done as in > Novial or Esperanto or whatever. If they want to make comparisons to > the way something is done in Russian or Arabic or English or whatever, > fine, but comparisons to other conIALs are counterproductive. > He seems to agree with me now. I see no problem with comparisons to other IAL contenders, but I think marketing only to refugees from the most popular IAL's severely limits the potential audience, and tends to set a bit of a negative tone to the alternative IAL's cause. It's okay to mention that Ido was the result of an Esperanto reform movement as a historical note but that shouldn't be the main focus. It should focus on the same things E-o does like the facts that it's regular and easy to learn. I think it was Justin Rye that originally pointed me to the LdP site. At the time is was a mess, but it looks like he's cleaned it up quite a bit though it still has a long way to go.