late to many Re:'s

Salutations to you all conlangers.
Due to some Outlook Messenger idiosyncrasy, I was disconnected
from the List for a few days, and lost some postings.
Sorry if I duplicate some remarks.
BTW, I'm not at home for a few days' family end-of-year festivities,
and have not al my books at hand. One more reason to make some _dumb_
assertions under cover of repeated IIRC's.

====================

Someone (post was lost, see above) wrote privately to me (not word for
word, but that was it):

> Do not use /slashes/ both for  |transcription| and [phonetics], that'll
> help you be understood.
Sound and sensible advice. I will stick to it, and to X-SAMPA as well. Of
course, when I become the Ultimate Novlanger, my Holy Notation will
become the Only One... but for now... :)))
Not joking any more, I _do_ need some notation for what I call (lacking
something else) "phoneme classes" -- I will use <angle brackets> just for
this post.
E.g., phoneme class <T> (I use small capitals normally) consists of
phonemes /t/, /d/, /D/ and /tt/. In turn, phoneme /D/ is phone'd as
[D] or [z]. Clear enough? My question was about <T> being lexical, while
all its /slash'd/ variants being grammatical.
P.S.- _why_ is SIL IPA's character mapping so close to X-SAMPA, just subtly
different? ("ask them" is not considered an acceptable answer).

====================

Another post received as private, this time from Isidora Zamora (seems
conlangeresses are few?):

> Is there any natlang with some NAND connector?
(was consecutive to my remark of logical connectors being synthetized from
the single NOR, thereby implying Lojban's logical redundancy)

Not to my knowledge. IMHO, it is not quite "natural", because it means
"maybe one or the other, maybe none". But, afterthought, it _does_ make
sense.
E.g., if you generalize NOR as "none from a set", it is fairly natural:
NOR x NOR y NOR z... or, using a class noun "NOR (no) conlanger is serious"
means something I can't believe. "NAND conlanger is serious" would mean
"some of them may be (or not), but certainly not all of them".
Hence I think NAND is indissociable from the idea of a collective plural;
in other words, NOR is individualizing, NAND is collectivizing.
My (soon coming) conlang has a similar construct, only applicable to
_binary_ connections. Some words are intrinsically dual: e.g. "eyes",
"legs",... anything that comes "naturally in pairs". Hence there is a
"singulative" number, to express "one from a pair". Someone walking on
"none of his legs" would be definitely crippled, while one walking on
"nand of his legs" may only imply one (at least) of the legs is
(temporarily) broken.
This is not fully original -- I stole it from some American language --
but I like it.

===============

About a thread mentioning:
> "He's a Democrat and proud of it."
> "The grasshopper mouse is a rodent and carnivorous."
> "He's a Democrat and lonely."
IMHO (but probably because I didn't follow the whole thread) there's no
_real_ difference between the NP and AP semantics there. "He is a Democrat"
amounts to me as "He is ("considered as", or "claiming to be") a Democrat",
so it is some kind of VP. This is the eternal argument between equative
and verbal propositions.
BTW, where did I read this remark, about a noun-only conlang ("there is a
state-of-being-a-dog in-a-state-of-threatening in-a-state-of-ourselves"),
saying IRCC "Maybe the author is in-a-state-of-pulling-our-legs"?
(My conlang is subject to the same criticism, except it is for its abuse
of doctrinal VSO syntax -- while most of its practical uses are VOS...

====================

Just for my very own pleasure, this one.
>> Anyway, to paraphrase your
>> comment about the Welsh letter |w|, hell will freeze over before you
>> persuade the
>> Goidelics to abandon their use of |aidheagh| as a vowel. Some of
usrather
>> like it:)
Reminds me of my very first travel to Ireland (was 12-13 years old). I
spent about one week just to find that the Main Post Office was on the
main street of Dublin, a few steps from my hostel, and that I'd overseen it
many times -- except it was signposted "Oifig an Phoist" (or sth similar).
Of course, as soon as I got back in Paris, I read the "Teach yourself
Irish" book, only to discover that |oighdhe| was just [i:]. And I _*loved*_
it.
At the time, being influenced by Latin and Greek, and soon by Sanskrit and
Russian, I couldn't imagine anything about eclipsis and aspiration. Now
Swahili and Nahuatl have opened my eyes: my conlang is full of infixes and
oversaturated with phonetic rules. Even I have difficulties in tracing back
a root to its original stem, once adorned with all its flexions...

====================

A very last one about phonetics.
I've just seen a documentary movie about World War II airplanes. The
speaker seemed unable to pronounce |Luftwaffe| as [luftvaf@] -- he said
[luftaf(@)] at best. I am being over-conscious?

Thank you all.

(and please, don't call my project a loglang as I've received --
call it a persolang or a paranolang if you wish, but _*not*_ logical!!!)

Friendly,

Franc,ois.