Re: A BrSc a?

At 12:12 pm -0700 19/4/02, Levi Tooker wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>       FRONT    CENTRAL   BACK
>> HIGH  /i/       /1/      /u/
>> LOW   /e/       /a/      /e/
>>
>> Here the front & back low vowels would be expected
>> to range from [e] to
>> [E], and [o] to [O] respectively.  The very low [{]
>> and [Q] should be
>> avoided.
>>
>> The only thing that holds me back is that high,
>> central vowel.  So many
>> languages (including English, which is quite widely
>> spoken  :)    lack the
>> sound.  I don't know of any constructed IAL that
>> includes it.  Would its
>> inclusion be unacceptable in a conlang that had, as
>> one of its aims, the
>> possibility of being used as an IAL?
>
>Personally, I like this scheme.
Thanks - so do I   :)

>........As an English speaker
>learning Russian, I found the vowel /1/ easy to
>distinguish from other vowels and was able to
>pronounce it with a little practice.
>
>I don't imagine this extra phoneme would seriously
>hinder the possibility of the language becoming a
>working IAL, but since this discussion may not be
>completely appropriate for this list, I'll be brief:
As I understand it, discussing an IAL as a _conlang_ is quite OK on this
list.  What should be reserved for that other list are *IAL politics*.
They don't interest me one bit.

>basically, I believe that since the extra phoneme
>greatly facilitates the linguistic aspects of the
>language, it becomes a higher priority than ease of
>pronunciation.
A very valid point, I think.

>Besides, all phonemic systems are
>difficult for some group of people.
True - Esperanto has been the most widely used of the constructed IALs, and
the fact that it has some quite difficult phonetic combos doesn't seem to
have been a great drawback.

Thanks for the feedback, I await all the other many responses with baited
breath   :))

Ray.

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