Re: Advice wanted re 'Briefscript'

Raymond A. Brown wrote:

> [kut]
>
> 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.
Frankly, I am not into discussing either "monosyllabic" or "morpheme" as it
relates to actual usage of a language. I am not into that much academia anymore,
since I found I make more progress into actual usage by just doing. I can dissect
walking into the finitest speck of the firing of the single cell to the mass
movement of the body via electrochemical means, and die in my chair from the lack
of actual walking.

Therefore, I have no further plans to discuss what you feel "sadly, I feel little
profit would be gained by our discussing this anywhere." And, I don't believe I
advocated doing that anyway. I would rather use Speedwords where it works, than
discuss why it won't work based on a rare potential problem that only a total
beginner would possibly run into, if they ever thought to even ask the question.
They would simply look in the dictionary and find only one word that could be used
in such an incident, and not mistake the meaning. Besides, let's not forget
context, etc.

Dutton deliberately kept Speedwords to only about 493 radicals so the whole thing
would be, and is, a very simple system. It is not as if one has to learn a "whole
language" of 10-30,000 words before they can understand "self-segregating
morphology".

And, again,

I won't mention it again if you won't. ;--)))

My real concern is this Ray. You have a perfect right to state where your
Briefscript started from. However, when you state your experience is that
Speedwords lack this or that, you don't seem to realize that your "stature" with
languages gives the impression that "that's it, there is no further answer or
question the authority has spoken". So, I am concerned when I see you make such
statements. You may not see your statements as having that kind of impact, but I
do, especially if there is no other side of the story to balance out the
statements.

Al l sue,
Bob, x+