Re: Advice wanted re 'Briefscript'

At 2:49 pm -0700 18/9/98, Robert J. Petry wrote:
>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.
Is *is* what I actually did experience - period.

Nor is it a speck that I have turned into a volcano - and IMHO such silly
language is merely provocative.  However, I will not be provked here.

Please do read what I write. I thought I had made it clear in the wording I
used that it was my own _personal_ experience.  I tried to avoid casting
any judgment about whether I was correct or not; I am sorry that I was not
successful in this & that my words were taken as an attack on Speedwords.

Ok - it might be my fault.  I may be lacking in perspicuity.  But it's
where I came from.

[snip]
>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
CONLANG, as I understand it, is for the discussion of artificial languages
of whatever kind while they are under construction & for the discussion of
related linguistic topics (e.g. self-segregating morphology).  My yet
unnamed brief-script is very much under construction.

Speedwords was the starting point of my project.  That, I'm afraid, is
pure, simple fact.  But, if it helps, I promise not to name the my starting
point on CONLANG again.  I HAVE NO WISH TO ATTACK OR CRITICIZE SPEEDWORDS
PER SE ON THIS LIST!

BUT - the discussion of self-segrating morphology is IMHO a valid topic for
CONLANG.

>and #2 you
>think it actually should be discussed elsewhere.
The AUXLANG list was set up specifically for those who wish to discuss AILs
which have already been constructed - Speedwords is one such.

But as in one of the many tedious exchanges on that list it became quite
apparent that we meant quite different things by the term "monosyllabic", I
have no doubt that we understand quite different things by the term
"morpheme" and hence have quite different notions of what constitutes
"self-segregating morphology".  In the words of Mark Line: Our ontologies
are different.  Therefore, sadly, I feel little profit would be gained by
our discussing this anywhere.

Ray.