Re: Aesthetics

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

Reply