Re: Advice wanted re 'Briefscript'

At 2:57 pm +0000 18/9/98, And Rosta wrote:
>John Cowan wrote:
.......
>> Actually, Lo{gl,jb}an has a two-level self-segregating system: words
>> as well as morphemes (where a word may contain one or more morphemes)
>> self-segregate.  In -gua!spi, on the other hand, words are monomorphemic
>> (compound words are the same as phrases) and only one level exists.
>> IIRC, And's Livagian segregates words but not morphemes.
>
>That's correct. Selfsegregating morphology doesn't strike me as very
>useful except for learners of the language, but Livagian is not
>designed to be easy to learn,
Fair enough.  It depends, it seems to me, on the _purpose_ of the language.
Long years ago when learning Speedwords I did find (sorry Bob, but it's
what _I_ experienced) the lack of self-segregating morphemes a problem*,
especially as morpheme division can make a very considerable difference to
the way the word is pronounced in that language.

(*Ok - you can segregate them once you've learnt the _whole_ language.  But
I do _not_ want to start a discussion of Speedwords here.  That is better
reserved IMO for AUXLANG or done in private. )

It may just be a peculiarity of mine that I feel more comfortable with a
language if I can learn to read it in the sense that I know what the words
before me sound like even if I don't know all the words; that's why, e.g.,
I feel at more at home with Welsh than with Irish.

Of course, I plan to make the pronunciation rules of my still unnamed
briefscript entirely regular, so the morpheme boundary problem will not be
such a problem.  But I still feel self-segregating morphemes will enhance a
language that might be an IAL.

.......
>lack of selfsegregating morphemes is not problematic. Furthermore,
>because of part of the way the language is defined, homonymy is
>impossible, so the "sukero" problem never arises.
Good.

Ray.