Re: "Useful languages"

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:08:10 -0500, "Karapcik, Mike"
<Karapcik@...> wrote:

>| --- Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>| > On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:54:14 +0100, Florian Rivoal
>| > <florian.rivoal@...> wrote:
>| >
>| > hard to read). While few languages are as easy to
>| > read as Finnish or Czech,
>| > there can hardly be many languages with as many
>| > pitfalls as English when it
>| > comes to spelling.
>
>        Actually, from the small amount of study I've done so far (I want to
>learn Czech, my last name is Czech, but I have a PlayStation....) Czech is
>not as easy to read as it appears.
On second thought, I must have been thinking of Serbo-Croatian. But then on
the other hand, Serbo-Croatian has unpredictable stress (not to mention
tones and vowel length, which go unmarked). I guess Spanish would have been
a better example after all, as Clint Jackson Baker suggested. Swahili and
Turkish as well.

My own conlangs (fictional as well as non-) have a tendency to be pretty
consistently phonemic in spelling, but this might not be very realistic. I
think I'll add Swedish to the list of useful languages, as a random example
of a more naturalistic system of spelling that's still easier to read than
English, but with interesting complications (and some cool vowel sounds).

--
languages of Azir------> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/lang/index.html>---
hmiller (Herman Miller)   "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com  email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" /  there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

Replies