Re: Metaconlinguistic terminology et alia

Raymond A. Brown wrote:

> >> In any case - excuse the pun - you think a fair degree of reaular
> >> morphological apparatus with a fairly flexible word order (I assume) is
> >> better in a conIAL than minimal morphology and a more rigid word order.
> >
> >I think either could work beautifully; all depends on the implementation.
>
> Possibly - I believe in the free market here.  People are free to design
> anything they wish as a conIAL.  All I said was that I would have no
> declensions & rely on a fairly fixed word order.  Then in true auxlang
> style I get accused of choosing something simply because that's the way
> it's done in English and, really, an different system is better.
Coincidentally, over on AUXLANG, James Chandler has just asked for some
assistance in designing an SVO isolating IAL based on Latin/Greek roots
and perhaps Chinese particles. He is aware of Glosa, and has been
studying pidgins/creoles of late. It might turn out to be interesting.