From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
> i'll have a try there when i've made up a conlang with an
> auxlangesque grammar. same for Tomato, i guess ?
> can't wait having fun arguing.
I realize now that the dying researcher was trying to tell me
"proto-Mato", not "pro Tomato", and the mystery is now solved.
I still have no clue what "mato" means, though.
> the only thing that pidgin lacks are genuine PoS.
Lingua Franca used -r and -t on verbs and participles, which worked well.
> i guess you refer to parsability problem and length of words.
> and apparently this is a big problem in your eyes.
> so i'd like to convince you it is not.
I think it is magical to see word boundaries disappear as in
Chinese and some North American Indian languages.
You mentioned this, which is what I really meant:
: inflexions are not a problem if you match the word orders
: in the sentence and in the lexicalisation.
> i know you too specialize w, y and i don't think that it is any more
> artificial than specializing [ ' ] in separating VC.. words (german) or
> VC syllables (lojban) or generally having a specific
> vowel have a systematic function when stuck at a specific place
> (esperanto).
That's true.
> so stop wingeing ;-)
Winging or whining or both? I must keep one.