Re: Previous post, more examples..

bnathyuw sikyal:

> > 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 . . .
This is a good point.  In fact, I'd be really curious to see if a lang
could be designed to both have taxonomic/descriptive vocabulary and
necessary redundancy. An interesting project . . .


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton

Reply