Esperanto or Ido?

[mōdgethanc]

I think the prescriptively correct way is "He is taller than I" because the implied full sentence is "He is taller than I am". It's similar to a distinction between "He likes you more than [he likes] me" and "He likes you more than I [do]".

This sounds more like pragmatics than syntax. I think "he's taller than me" sounds fine, and so does "he's taller than I am" (for reasons I cannot yet fully understand, "me am" is ungrammatical).

[Dormouse559]

This sounds more like pragmatics than syntax. I think "he's taller than me" sounds fine, and so does "he's taller than I am" (for reasons I cannot yet fully understand, "me am" is ungrammatical).

English (informal English anyway) actually uses its object pronouns very similarly to French disjunctive pronouns.

"I left." vs. "Je suis parti."
"John and me left." vs. "Jean et moi sommes partis."

"He is taller than me." vs. "Il est plus grand que moi."

"It's him." vs. "C'est lui."

Prescriptively speaking, all of the bolded English pronouns should be in the subject case.

[mōdgethanc]

That must be why I have never noticed anything unusual about the way French pronouns work here. To me, "John and I" sounds like a hypercorrection.

[kevin]

It's no accident that people try to say the ungrammatical "he's taller than me." Sure it's technically not correct, but in languages with proper objects it's what you would do.

I can't see any object in this sentence, only a predicative. That's why in German you get "Er ist größer als ich" (and not: ...als mich)

[mōdgethanc]

German isn't English though.

[kevin]

Indeed. Doesn't make it an object, though.

[JuxtapositionQMan]

differentiation of 3 tenses is one thing, but for instance, Hungarian hasn't got perfect aspect and doesn't use passive. And while I love the ability to use these in Eo, I think it's a bit over the top for an IAL.
Granted, for its time, given the background, Eo is an amazing innovation. Although I barely speak Eo, I see myself as an esperantist. I support the sentiment, the movement, and the language and I respect Zamenhoff for what he acomplished and Eo for how far it's come.
Nonetheless, I think that in today's world we could (and should) devote ourselves to making another, better IAL.
in 1887 it was much harder to travel the world and gather resources on various languages, but as the 125th anniversary of Eo looms, I think we can agree that comparative and abstract linguistics are at the point where we could engineer a language which suits the needs of an IAL far better.

I think that instead of starting completely over, improve Esperanto to be better. Ido (as much as I hate it) seems to see this, it just went in the wrong direction. Instead of reducing the amount of sounds, build upon them (see my comment on the "improve esperanto" thread). keep what is there: it aint broke, don't fix it, but just add new suffixes, prefixes, or even grammar. add a possessive rule? go for it! pseŭdo- & pseŭdoa? go for it! go back to 1²? NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
The following Esperanto has shouldn't work against building a better language. The people who already use Esperanto will probably welcome changes if it makes it easier. A friend of mine said it best:

Build another floor on your house, and ya' got more room.
Tear down your house to rebuild, and ya' got alotta rebuilding to do.