Re: Too bizarre?

On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 05:16 PM, Andreas Johansson wrote:

> Quoting Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>:
[snip]

>> But is it too bizarre??
>
> I think it's nifty. But then I'm the guy who concocted the orthography in
> which "oo", "ou", "uo" and "uu" all spell [ow] ... :)
>
> Seriously, I think it's along the more elegant things on the lines of
> a "romanagana" I've seen. I say go ahead!
>
I like it describe as 'elegant' - thanks for the encouragement.
==============================================================


On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 08:51 PM, Jeff Jones wrote:

> Hi Ray,
> comments in line.
>
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:44:21 +0000, Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:
[snip]
>> (I don't suppose Dirk, or BP - or any one else - has kept any fuller
>> info.
>>  about Srikanth's scheme)
>
> If this was in 1999, it should be in the Conlang list archives, unless it
> was sent privately. I haven't tried searching yet.
Don't.  It was on another list which I no longer subscribe to.  I suppose
it might be archived
there but as a non-member I guess I ahan't know,

[snip]

>>         Lo/Hi  Back/Front
>>           0        0       = /O/
>>           1        0       = /u/
>>           0        1       = /E/
>>           1        1       = /i/
>>
>> Where Lo=0, Hi=1; and 0 = Back (and rounded) and 1 = Front (and
>> unrounded)
>> .
>
> So far, this is what I did for Pre{'Yemls}, so it doesn't look bizarre to
> me!
Wow - great minds obviously think alike    :)

[snip]

> Anyways I know
> a) you want to avoid upper case for BrSc (ease of typing),
Yep.

> b) you probably want to avoid unusual letter assignments, such as a, i,
>    or u for consonants (ease of learning),
Generally, yes - though I've nothing against |i| = /j/ and |u| = /w/ or
even
/v/.

> c) (I forgot what else),
> so I know this isn't directly helpful but maybe it will trigger something?
I welcome all observations - all helps to trigger things.

>> The advantages of this over the present BrScB scheme is that:
>> - we do not need any extra symbol to make the vocalization clear;
>> - bz, pz etc have only _one_ meaning each instead of two possible
>> meanings
>> which IMO is better.
>
> I don't remember the current scheme. Do you also have 1 or 3 consonant
> words? If so, how would you handle them here?
I do. And that I haven't thought everything through yet - just flying a
kite,
so to speak.

Single consonants in all version of BrSc (whether BrScA or BrScB) have
denoted _bound_ morphemes - either suffixes or enclitics.  Their
vocalization
has been governed by simple vowel harmony determined by the vowel(s) of the
lexical morpheme they follow.  I guess that can still be the case; which
means
perhaps that the first rather than the second consonant should determine
whether
we have back or front vowel harmony.

I'm not sure how I'd handle 3-consonant lexical morphemes at present.

>> But is it too bizarre??
>
> Not too bizarre, but does it meet you requirements for BrSc?
Possibly   :)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================