Re: Too bizarre?

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:58:10 +0000, Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:
>
>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,
Too late -- I already did before I saw this, searching for Briefscript,
Srikanth, and Skrintha each. Don't worry, the few messages that came up
were worth rereading. If the other list was Auxlang, I've searched that
also. No hint of what you mentioned, but again, the messages were worth
reading. I even saw some where you and Bob Petry agreed :)  One curious
thing was that I didn't have to subscribe to do the search! An even more
curious thing was that while the listserv archives for Conlang go back only
to Sep. 1998, those of Auxlang go back to Feb. 1997!!!

>[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    :)
Yes.

>[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/.
So you could pair |i| with |y| and |u| with |w|.

>> 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.
Presumably like a 2-consonant base + 1-consonant suffix, assuming they're
written the same way. Otherwise the reader would have to figure out which
rule to use???

Jeff

>>> 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)
>===============================================

Reply