Re: Futurese

----- Original Message -----
From: "Javier BF" <uaxuctum@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Futurese


> On Mon, 6 May 2002 18:39:51 +0100, Michael Poxon <m.poxon@...>
wrote:
>
> >Dear Kala Tunu,
> >That was me (Michael Poxon). I especially like the way you translated
the
> >idea of "regularly variable star" by the idea of a vibrating string -
> >especially as the stellar variations also have sub-harmonics too! But
> >basically I was just throwing down the gauntlet to Javier as an
example of
> >technical English to translate into his IAL. Don't let that stop
anyone
> else
> >trying to translate it into their conlangs though!
> >Mike
>
> Well, maybe that's because you haven't noticed that "my"
> IAL is just in its preliminary phase (there's just a
> sketch of the grammar and a bunch of words). If I posted it
> here it was precisely to try to get some help in developing
> it, a help which up to this moment nobody here seems willing
> to offer, since almost every reply to my post has been
> definitely aggressive and destructive, as if my proposal was
> a peril and I a wicked demon that had to be beaten down; and
> that even though I asked for it to be viewed simply as a
> conlang so as to avoid starting flame wars about the need,
> convenience, etc. of an IAL.
I do not know where exactly is the problem, Javier, but probably it is
that you came here with the concept that Futurese is the best IAL ever
and that your decitions are the best possible.  You have not used these
words but this is the attitude your replies transmit.  If you read again
most of the original replies, there were just asking for clarification
or standard criticism.

Even if you are not claiming that you are an IAL advocate and that you
pretend that futurese will be treated as a simple conlang, you have
stated that Futurese is an IAL and therefor a great deal of this
criticism is concern on futurese as an IAL.

Your words:
<<
So, I'm not here to discuss the necessity or convenience
for an IAL, just to comment on the FEATURES of the language.
Just think of futurese (this is just a working nickname,
not meant as the definitive name for the language) it as a
conlang devised so as to meet certain requirements.
>>
Having seem things from the outside, it seems that you took a defensive
aproach to answer the replies and then the dialog evolved into fight.
Once the first signs of this was present, some people just labeled you
as the typical auxlanger.

Let's come back to Futurese, and remember, these are personal opinions.

Isolating:  I think this is the best idea.

Roman alphabet, with no diacritics: this is the best approach given the
technology today, and unless we could claim that in the future all
systems and keyboard will be Unicode (or Latin-1 at least), this would
probably be the best solution for the coming future.

Using all 26 letters?  I see that your point is optimizing.  No
diagraphs?  This could be seen as part of the optimization.  We could
then argue if this optimization is needed or desirable.

The phoneme chart: (I will use SAMPA):

    m    n    N
  p b  t d  k g  (?)
  f v  s z  S Z   h
         r
    w    l    j

  i @ u
   e o
    a

with voiceless plosives aspirated and /r/ as an apical trill, does not
seem to be the easiest for the most people, and I am not sure if the CVC
syllable pattern is the best either if ease of pronunciation is the aim
as syllable final consonants are not as contrastive as syllable initial.
Some of these contras will be hard for many people both for hearing as
for producing.

Of course, this will not be a problem if you don't claim that the ideal
auxlang should be easy to pronounce for every monoglot despite their
native language.

You have claimed that few of the most spoken language have the
"classical" five vowels.  I am not sure how many of them have a lax
vowel that might be stressed (and therefor would contrast in a
monosylabic vocabulary).

When asigning this sounds to the orthography, problems arise.  It would
be kind of easy to use "a e i o u" and "m b p f n t d s k g r l" to
their IPA values.  "z", "v", "h", "w" would be safe enough.  Now, /N/,
/S/, /Z/, /j/, /?/ and /@/ are not as easy choices and we have the
letters "c j q x y" left.

Any solution to assigne those six phonemes to those five letters will
make some counter-intuitive choise.  I am not quite fond on <q> for /N/
and <x> for /Z/, as I find them as counterintuitive.

The fact is that Latin alphabet is not the best fit for any language,
unless it is a conlang optimized for the latin alphabet.

Then is that /?/ realized as [?] or [ ].  I note, given the discutions,
that you want to mark it to allow a better segregation of the morphems,
forcing all morphems to be CV or CVC, and thus avoiding that a CVC VC
would be interpreted as CV CVC.  It is not clear, however, if that [?]
should be pronounced or if it should be marked ortographically with <'>.

There are two ways of expresing this: do not count the glotal stop as a
phoneme, that the sylable structure is (C)V(C) and then say that vowel
initial syllabes should be pronounced with the glotal stop.  OR  Count
the glotal stop, claim that the syllable structure is CV(C) and finally
say that /?/ may not be pronounced.  (The decision you make in the
orthography would give a clue of which is the best say to word all
this.)

While those 26/27 phonemes seem quite large for an IAL, that an the
CV(C) syllable structure become quite short for a monosyllabic
vocabulary.

This gives 21×6×21 syllables, and therefor 2646 possible morphems.  This
is aparently enough for a minimun vocabulary language, but:

Either your vocabulary is quite dense using most of the 2646 morphemes,
and thus forcing concepts to sound/look too alike (much as the problem
you claim for CVCV roots in minimal sound systems) and making no room
for new concepts.  OR you have a vocabulary of about one thousand
morphemes that would require compunds.

And all compunds either have some idiosincracies (like "fire exit"), or
need a good deal of case markers that would avoid the idiosincracies
("exit used in fire situations").

About borrowing words.  You have claimed that words might be borrowed
for specific concepts not covered by compounds (or where the borrowing
concept is deemed as "international" and therefor preferible than a
compound).  With the discution of /?/ it seems you want a
selfsegregating language phonemicwise.  Have you thought a way to tell
appart "Internet" from "'in ter net" or "'in ty net"?

Note.  I am not saying that futurese won't work (I believe that it won't
work but that discussion does not belong here), just that you should be
aware of:
  - every decision will seem like a flaw for somebody.
  - anybody's concern has a reason; but you do not have to address them
all.
  - claiming that you like it that way is a perfect argument for a list
like conlang.  You don't have to please or convince anybody, or better:
you should not try to convince everybody.
  - there is no perfect auxlang: neither Tunu, Interlect, Futurese, Tino
or Esperanto.  Everyone of these will have what other people believes is
a flaw.

Finally: if you ask for comments do not expect that all comments will be
"Congratulations Javier, you made the perfect IAL", and if someone does
not like what you are doing don't get deffensive.  This will apply also
for your discussions with Alexandre.

-- Carlos Th