Re: Lin & BrSc: orthography & phonology

At 1:40 pm -0700 1/4/02, Dirk Elzinga wrote:
>At 7:57 PM +0100 04/01/02, Raymond Brown wrote:
>>So, I ask three questions:
>>1. Am I right to avoid the constant use of the shift-key (unlike Lin and
>>X-SAMPA) ?
>
>I agree with this avoidance for the reasons you stated.
Noted.

>>2. Is there any real objection to using not only the {2} and {4} of
>>texters, but also the other digit symbols to denote sound?
>
>I have no personal objection to using numerals in this way. I once
>created an electronic version of the Chemehuevi lexicon (Press 1980),
>and I used <7> for glottal stop, which Press (1980) represented with
[snip]
>mapping was also used among Mayan field linguists. I've also seen <9>
>used for X-SAMPA /?\/ in some transliterations of Arabic. I have used
><3> to represent X-SAMPA /G/; it was meant to remind me of <yogh>.
In fact all the digits are used, or maybe used, in X-SAMPA

>>3. Is there any real reason not to use at least some of the
>>non-alphanumeric symbols?
>
>Well, many of these characters are only accessible through the shift
>key, so the same objections would hold as for the use of capitals as
>separate characters. In principle they're fine, but they might slow
>down text entry.
Yes, of course.  In fact the three I gave are all accessed via the
shift-key on normal keyboards.  I suppose the only non-alphanumeric symbols
are available without the shift are:
- = [ ] ; ' \  , . /

Some keyboards seem to have # available without the shift.

[snip]
>
>Well, I still like my vowel harmony scheme, which would enable each
>consonant symbol to represent a syllable :-). But it doesn't seem to
>fit BrSc. That's the way it goes.
I like it also (and brSc has [at present] its own vowel harmony scheme).
But IIRC it needs the inclusion of the high central vowel [1] which,
personally, I would quite like; but I don't think it is a"good thing" in
something that (in theory, at least) has use as an IAL as one of its aims.

Another aim of mine is morphemic self-segregation.  One of the things I
found confusing when I learnt Speedwords was that it is difficult for
beginners to spot morpheme boundaries, which doesn't help with compound
forms in particular.  The scheme I've had in mind for some time, with the
written form of root words being CVC and of affix & clitics being C, allows
for this.

The problemthen  is that the number of root words is rather restricted,
about 2500, which necessitates compounding - the latter will often then
produce words longer than their English counterpart, which goes somewhat
against the aim of brevity!   Speedwords actually has the same problem -
indeed it is greater, since Dutton limited himself to 214 root words.

Tho I cannot hope to rival Srikanth with more than 480 single letter words,
I do try to experiment with schemes that:
a) will allow self-segregating morphemes
b) allow a very high number of (two or) three letter morphemes to be created
c) avoid sounds which are likely to be troublesome in an IAL
------------------------------------------------------------------

At 4:36 pm -0800 1/4/02, jesse stephen bangs wrote:
>Raymond Brown sikayal:
>
>> So, I ask three questions:
>> 1. Am I right to avoid the constant use of the shift-key (unlike Lin and
>> X-SAMPA) ?
>
>Well, if you goal is speed and ease of use, this seems like a good thing.
>At the same time, using the shift key doesn't slow down an accomplished
>typist very much.
Yep, but if the change from upper to lower & lower to upper is frequent
(and in a scheme like Lin it must surely be), the slowing downs will mount
up even for an accomlished typist.  But I am not designing BrSc for
accomplished typists, but for all, including typists as slow as me.  One
goal must surely be speed.  The two goals of Dutton's Speedwords were:
1. to serve as a potential IAL
2. to serve as an alphabetic shorthand.

These must still be the theoretic goals of BrSc - even tho I'm sickened by
the politicking of Auxland.  I've added a third goal to Dutton's, namely:
3. to have self-segregating morphemes.

Obviously, there must be compromises between the different aims.  I'm
trying to get the best compromise - not easy  ;)

>> 2. Is there any real objection to using not only the {2} and {4} of
>> texters, but also the other digit symbols to denote sound?
>
>I have an aesthetic objection, but that isn't a "real" objection ;-).
Except that if such an aesthetic objection were widely held, it would be
not be a good idea.  But the weird orthography of Klingon doesn't seem to
have done it any harm - quite the reverse, in fact.

>Note that the number characters are harder to reach than the normal
>alphabet characters on a standard keyboard, which will slightly slow down
>speed.
The way I type, it makes no difference  :)
But how significantly would it slow things up?  Is it comparable to the
constant use of the shift-key, for example?

>> 3. Is there any real reason not to use at least some of the
>> non-alphanumeric symbols?
>
>No, but if you're avoiding the shift key, you'll obviously want to also
>only use the punctuation marks which are unshifted on the standard
>keyboard.
Good point - and noted above.

Ray
(still open to comments - good, bad or whatever)

======================
   XRICTOC ANESTH
======================