Re: Futurese

>>If you want a language to be "as neutral as possible", you
>>shouldn't consider that much that there are languages "more
>>important" than others.
>
>I think this is a new one - an IAList who puts treating languages the same
>above treating people the same.
Please, could you explain me what exactly do you mean
with that?


>> >>> for the liquids (/l/ and /r/), 96% of the languages used at least
>> >>> one, 72% used more.
>> >
>> >Not helpful.  Somewhere about a quarter of the world's population speak
a
>> >language with only one.
>>
>>And about two thirds of the world's population speak
>>languages which do distinguish l/r. So why granting
>>that privilege to that quarter and not granting a
>>similar privilege to the rest?
>
>Were I you, I'd stop worrying so much about fairness and take a more
>pragmatic approach.
And may I know what Your Highness understands by "taking
a more pragmatic approach"?


>Would you care to specify the exact prescriptionist values of the Futurese
>vowels? English (many varieties thereof, at leat) has sounds clsoe enough
to
>each of the classical five vowels.
Why do you call them "classical"? Because they're the
vowels of the "classical" language Latin?


>The vowels in eg "pin", "bed", "far", "spot", "pull", in my RPoid
>pronunciation (I'm sure natives with different dialects can offer similar
>lists), are close enough to the classical five that I find it very hard to
>believe that speakers of a /i e a o u @/ language would recognize 'em
>(altho' of course they may think I've got a funny accent).
Yes, but if you want to pronounce them "properly", you'll have
to do some effort (I'm not sure to what extent since I have no
idea how the vowels of your dialect sound).

Besides, English speakers will have to learn to combine
them freely with the semivowels (think e.g. of ew and the
difference between e/ej, o/ow).


>[snip]
>> >>>Where you're most likely to encounter languages that merge
>> >>> L/R is around the Time Date Line, that is, in parts of East Asia
>> >>> and Oceania, and the speakers of languages from other areas ins-
>> >>> tantly identify the merging of L/R as a local habit of that geo-
>> >>> graphical region.
>> >
>> >China is actually a not insignificant part of East Asia - and a
>>reasonable
>> >distance from the Time Date Line.  But the same merging is, in fact, not
>>by
>> >any means unknown among native African languages.
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >>> So, as you can see, when designing the sound system of an IAL it
>> >>> is not possible that you take into account such local habits of
>> >>> pronounciation
>> >
>> >Sorry, writing off the speech habits of the Chinese who form not an
>> >inconsiderable part of the earth's population as "local habits of
>> >pronunciation" seems to me very patronizing.
>>
>>That considerable part of today's Earth's population (those
>>figures may change in the future) lives in a very localized
>>part of the world.
>
>China's got a quite substantial fraction of the planets population for
>pretty much all of recorded history, so I rather doubt that is about to
>change. But since you seem to prefer democracy of languages to democracy of
>speakers, that's a pretty moot point.
The same as above, most sincerely I don't get neither
the point of your words nor the one of your derogative
attitude.

Replies