Idists are often asked what makes Ido better than Esperanto. The thing is, it’s not an easy question to answer, because Ido is the result of an extensive reform that, from the point of view of a single word (such as cienco instead of scienco), might seem like an irrelevant caprice. However, it is when we explore the big picture that we find out that one of Ido’s biggest strengths is its etymological consistency. Here’s an example with biscuit which comes from French.
biscuit = bis (twice)+ cuit (cooked) = bis + koquito → bis + -quito = bisquito.
biscuit = bis (twice) + cuit (cooked) = bis + kvito = biskvito.
(French) cuire → kuiri (to cook) → (French) cuit = kuirita (cooked).
As you can see, the two Esperanto words come from the same language (French), from the same verb (to cook), yet the same sound (cui) is represented both by kvi and by kui, thus defeating Esperanto’s own system of one letter, one sound. On the other hand, Ido keeps the same spelling and pronunciation and even respects the words’ etymology. It might not make much of a difference in practice, but it does demonstrate that the whole system a lot less arbitrary and more scientific.
After all, God is in the detail! 🐮