Re: A BrSc a?

At 5:08 pm +0200 28/4/02, BP Jonsson wrote:
>Please allow me to propose:
>
>Scheme (c)
>----------
>
>    /i/      /u/
>
>    /e/      /A/
>
>
>But then I don't like the syllabary idea at all, being quite taken with
>your CVCv scheme. :-)
Yes, I know - and it'll be with some reluctance that I abandon the CVCv
scheme, if indeed I do.  My main concerns about the CVCv scheme are:
(a) in order to use all 26 letters of the current Roman alphabet, I have to
include some sounds and/or contrasts that I would rather avoid in an IAL;
(b) it puts a constraint on the number of root morphemes and will probably
mean compounding more often than natlangs - and that runs counter to
brevity.

If only I dare use tones à la Chinoise.  If being an IAL were not one of
the three goals, I'd do so without a moment's hesitation.

The present ideas are, however, _experimental_.  As our politicians are so
fond of saying: "At this stage, nothing is ruled in and nothing is being
ruled out."

The ideas were sparked off, of course, by my re-visiting Lin and reading my
notes more carefully before posting the Lin info on the list.  It prompted
a re-visit to Dirk's 'Roman syllabary' and also co-incided with my
currently reading stuff on ancient Egyptian.  All these factors have come
together at much the same time.  It may be, as we say in Middle Earth, a
coincidence  :)

But, if I do give up the CVCv scheme, you have my full permission to use it  ;)



======================
   XRICTOC ANECTH
======================