Talk:Comparison between Ido and Novial

False claims

This page currently has no info at all, and seems to be a vehicle 
for original research. Unles it can be verified as a referenced object of study, 
this comparison has no place here.

The article contains parallel texts for comparison of 2 languages (the title of the article). Several similar comparison article s already exist. Where do you get the idea that it is original research? Both texts already exist as part of other articles in this Wikipedia. The idea is to expand the article over time. Nov ialiste 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc^g 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The result was NO CONSENSUS. I'm closing as a default keep for now. Wikipedia cannot make a comparison between two things. No matter how well referenced each of the things compared it, it will still be original research. All we can do is report comparisons made by other scholars. We report research, we don't do it. That's a fine but important line. I'm closing as keep for now to allow the article to be re-written with citations to comparisons being made elsewhere. If such cannot be added after a reasonable time, then the article MUST be deleted. If it isn't properly cites, I invite someone to re-nominate it after, say, two months, or alternatively an admin to delete it on the strength of this debate. -Docg 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The comparison follows that contained in Jespersen's book, An International Language, which is listed and linked to at the bottom of the page. For Jespersen it was original research, but we are just following him. (There are also comparisons with other conlangs in the book, but this is the most important one, particularly since Jespersen was previously the most distinguished partisan of Ido.) --OinkOink 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And Jespersen, as creator of Novial, is a primary source, not a secondary one. But we report on secondary sources, since we are a tertiary source. From WP:RS: "In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." This has also to do with the notability criteria (WP:NOTE): has the subject been discussed in multiple reliable independent sources? Jespersen is per definition not an independent source. Fram 08:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comprehend how you can claim Jespersen is not reliable or notable. In English philology, I think only Henry Sweet could be listed as his equal. You won't find a more respectable specialist in his time in what we would now call English linguistics. His scholarly credentials are impeccable. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet, and I do not understand your motivations here. And why don't the references by Auerbach and Jacob count as secondary sources? --OinkOink 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mismatch between Ido and Novial's pronouns

Ido's lu and li are not only pan-gendered, but "universal", meaning they apply also to objects, like the English "it". According to the Novial Lexike (1930), Novial's le does not include the English "it". According to An International Auxiliary Language (1928), lum is isolated from le, indicating that one is not included in the other. My conclusion is this: les in Novial is the equivalent of the "universal" li in Ido, while le has no equivalent in Ido, since le does not include lum while lu includes olu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLazyDog (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)