Re: Futurese

>Way back in the 19th cent. Schleyer was worried about having
>both /r/ and /l/ and designed his Volapük with only /l/ (tho the De Jong
>revival also revived /r/.  But if you're catering for Chinese, Japanese,
>Korean and other speakers and want cultural neutrality it is questionable
>whether both should be included.
Well, I've already posted a very extensive comment to justify
this at Google groups. I'll proceed to post those comments
here as soon as I finish replying to your replies. :-)


>>> vowels: .....|........................ i . y . u ..... |
>>> .............|.......................... e . o ....... |
>>> .............|............................ a ......... |
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> (p, t and k, aspirated; y, schwa)
>>        Why insist on aspiration?
>
>Indeed - why, e.g. do French speakers have to aspirate the voiceless stops?
>I know from experience they find this difficult.
And I can assure you 100% trustworthy that aspiration is
also "difficult" for Spanish speakers (so trustworthily assured
as I myself am a native Spanish speaker). But, simply, is not
just that aspiration is going to be found "difficult" by the
speakers of those languages that don't use it, it's that ANY
sound feature will be found "difficult" by the speakers of those
languages which don't use it. Please, wait a little bit and then
have a look at the extensive justification on the phoneme
chart I'm going to post.


>>> 5) Basic vocabulary: MONOSYLLABIC
>
>Ah, just like Mon-ling    :)
One of the very few things nobody complains and will
ever complain about English is precisely its extensive use
of monosyllabic words (I'm not sure if you've already noticed
that a great deal of English basic words are in fact
monosyllabic: one, of, the, few, thing, is, its, use, word,
I, am, not, sure, if, you, have, that, a, great, deal, are,
in, fact...).


>>> 6) Vocabulary sources:
>>> (a) onomatopoeic / expressive
>>> (b) "inspired" by existing languages (Lojban's method)
>>        What languages are on your list of inspiration?
>
>The same ones as lojban?  Or will you use a much broader spectrum like,
>e.g. Acadon?
A much broader spectrum.


>I suppose the point Peter and I making is that we've heard almost exactly
>the same things before from other IAL constructors.  I feel that if (and
>it's a very big IF in my opinion) a contructed IAL is going to take off
>it'll need some extra "secret ingredient".
Well, then please have a look at the syntactic structure.

Best regards,
Javier