Re: Tit'xka (Pretty Long Post)
| From: | Tom Wier <artabanos@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, December 29, 1998, 4:14 |
|---|
Eric Christopherson wrote:
> Sheets, Jeff wrote:
> > Other than that, what do you think of it? I'm interested to see how =
quickly
> > you guys can massacre "my precious". :)
>
> One more thing. ( I'm in a really critical mood today! :) ) I would
> think that using c for /tS/ and x for /S/ would make more sense than
> the reverse, since both of those usages are known in real languages
> (the first in Indic languages, the second in Portuguese).
Except that he's not trying to make an IAL. If he were, that might be
a really good criticism of his orthography; but as it stands, since it's
meant more as a personal lang, IMO doing what he's doing just might
have a better effect in the context of his personal world. :)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <twier@...>
ICQ#: 4315704 AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
"S=F4=F0 is gecy=FEed / =FE=E6t mihtig God manna
cynes / w=EAold w=EEde-ferh=F0."
_Beowulf_, ll. 700-702
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D