You're right about the basic idea of why I support Idiom Neutral over
all the rest. I've always wanted a language that has both an academic
appeal but is also easy for people here (Korea/Japan) to learn and
without coming across as being a warmed-over version of English. I
actually translated another three pages yesterday without having to
come up with any new words or expansions on some of the existing ones,
so I don't find the dictionary to be as useless as it might seem when
looking at all the cobwebbed terms from 1903. It's actually nice to
have them around since few in 2010 could hope to come up with them,
and they can be helpful in translating some of the now copyright-free
literature from that time.
As for the suggestion of altering existing languages I'll just have to
refer to you to your own paragraph above that I'm not a language
creator and taking one of them and altering it sounds about as much
fun as drafting a new copyright law or TOS for a website. I don't mind
coming up with the basic design for a language but beyond that it's
torture. Even coming up with new words isn't as fun as just having
them in the first place, and I like the process to be as quick as
possible.
Beyond that though there's a problem with using other languages as a
source. Interlingua has the rule of three which lets in all sorts of
non-official terms and brings about a lot of discussion about which
word from the group of three is to be preferred, Occidental is all
about derivation and IN would have to ignore the De Wahl rule to
incorporate its vocabulary, Esperantists by and large just aren't fans
of languages created from it, and so on. Latino sine Flexione is also
a bit problematic in that technically any Latin word is also a LsF
word but that brings in some pretty weird archaic Latin terms and
other words that have undergone semantic shift (like necare) over
time.
Now, if somebody came up with a language now in 2010 that had IN's
advantages and made it for me I'd certainly be willing to take a look
at it.