Re: Previous post, more examples..

 --- JS Bangs <jaspax@...> wrote: >
> There's a simple reason why no natlang does this:
> the words are too long
> and too easily confused.  Similar things tend to
> have similar names, and
> while this *seems* be a good thing, it actually
> causes problems.  If I
> want to know the difference between carrotss and
> potatoes, the one-letter
> or so difference between the words for them will
> only lead to confusion.
>
> In real life, the more similar things are, the more
> important it often is
> to be able to distinguish them. Schemes like this
> fail on that. They lack
> redundancy.
>
> At the same time, it's an interesting idea for a
> phillang.

you could, however have one with a complex degree of
vowel and consonant harmony/sandhi/whatever you want
to call it.

so maybe yuvatizha might be very siliar to ivechizui,
but not sound much the same at all . . .

bn

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Reply