Re: Advice wanted re 'Briefscript'

Raymond A. Brown wrote:

> [kut]
>
> 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. )
Again, if you bring up the subject, which you do each time, then how can you
expect to not get a rebuttal comment, especially to a speck that you have
extended into a volcano. In fact, it is absolutely _no problem_ at all, period.
It is a total exaggeration and distortion. And, _emphatically you do not, not,
not have to learn the whole language to understand this_ as you imply above. In
fact, all you really need to do is learn thoroughly the first three lessons of
the full textbook, and any so-called future problems are solved.

I do not know what was in the correspondence course that got you into this mode
with Speedwords, but I soon shall know, because I will have in my grimy little
hands the original correspondence course for reprinting. I began learning
Speedwords at approx. the same time you did and I never once had such a problem
with Speedwords. I frankly, do not know why you hang on to this about the
system when it is emphatically not a problem in actual use. It is only a
problem in theory when one surmises what they think will occur.

Further, I also have a copy of Rick's treatise on Speedwords, and I find it
lacking in understanding of the whole system from my experience with it over 40
years versus his reading some basic material and coming to his conclusions.
And, a better place to learn the full, complete and actual truth and facts
about Speedwords is to join the Speedwords discussion list. It is at
raplinrie@onelist.com.

I respectfully request you not bring  this up about Speedwords again on the
conlang list if, as you say: #1 you don't want to discuss it here, and #2 you
think it actually should be discussed elsewhere.

> 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.
I absolutely applaud your moving ahead to build BriefScript, or whatever label
it ends up with, but I, as everyone probably knows by now, cannot fail to
respond to what I perceive as being an exaggerated problem in Speedwords. And,
furthermore, I am actually very impatient to see the fine results I am sure you
are going to obtain with your efforts.

Viva BriefScript!!!

Al l sue,
Bob, x+

Important sites:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/2464
http://members.xoom.com/Diplomat
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/palette/231

P.S. I promise I won't respond on this again, if you don't bring it up again.
;--)))