Re: Aesthetics

Apologies to the list. What happened in that last post?

From: Douglas Koller
<laokou@...>&#10;&#10;> From: Edgard Bikelis <bikelis@...>&#10;&#10;> 1) On
phonology, good vowels &#10;> are [a@eEioOuy]; not sure about nasals.
&#10;&#10;Bring on the front roundeds: &#10;[2, y], though I also like [O] and
[Q]. Nasals work.&#10;&#10;> Good&#10;> consonants are velars, alveolars, and
labials (both dental and &#10;> bilabial).&#10;&#10;Clusters, let's not forget
clusters. :)&#10;&#10;> 3) On &#10;> syntax, I can just think of parataxis
versus hypotaxis. Parataxis is&#10;> beautiful, short, 'rhythmic', but
hypotaxis, if not of Ciceronian style, &#10;> may&#10;> be so too. About
rhythmic, it's too vague a word, and here I mean &#10;> the&#10;> reading
memory, used to get the relationship between each phrase on &#10;> sentence, is
not too heavily used. Herodotus is just right, not too &#10;> short, not too
baroque. &#10;&#10;Oh my, byzantine and baroque rules. No!
 t &#10;
great for a haiku, but delish.&#10;&#10;> BTW, I'm not still decided if indirect
&#10;> speech is neat or just more complicated than useful.&#10;&#10;Neat,
neat, neat. &#10;&#10;> Did anyone here ever wrote an 'aesthetic credo' before
starting &#10;> a conlang? &#10;&#10;No, but I'd venture stuff I like has made
its way into &#10;G&#233;arthnuns.&#10;&#10;> (After an epiphany on