esperanto_story1-4, Exercise 1: Both sides of the reform dispute

Model answer (check the details):

The case for the Ido reforms:
1. Removing accented letters makes typing and printing easier in the early 20th century.
2. Dropping the accusative and adjective agreement simplifies the grammar for learners.
3. Choosing roots by their spread across Romance languages could make reading easier for many Europeans.
4. A language built to serve science and commerce should be open to improvement by experts.

The case for keeping the Fundamento fixed:
1. A language that keeps changing cannot support books, textbooks or a community; the Volapük experience showed the risk.
2. The Boulogne Declaration had promised stability, and changing it would break the promise.
3. The accusative and agreement give freedom of word order and clearness, so they are features and not flaws.
4. Reform controlled by a small committee, or by the original author, would place power again in a few hands.

What evidence would decide it: tests of learning time and error rates for the two systems; the experience of long-term users of each; the survival of the two communities; and a record of how often changes were needed in practice.

Care: the dispute was partly about principles (stability against improvement), and evidence can inform the principle but not settle it.