Re: Dropping Q and C (was: Some isolating verb patterns)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:50:31 +0000, Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
> Poster:       Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
> Subject:      Dropping Q and C (was: Some isolating verb patterns)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Saturday, January 15, 2005, at 11:09 , Gary Shannon wrote:
> [snip]
> > Pascal also noted: "Besides, if it's Latin-based, you
> > should use q for kw."
> >
> > Just to be curmudgeonly I was planning on dropping Q
> > and C from my alphabet and using "KW", "K" and "S" to
> > replace them.
>
> ..and why not? It seems sensible to me - not curmudgeonly   ;)
>
> Just because a language is Latin *based*, it does not mean it has to use
> Latin spelling conventions. One might just as well, using that logic, tell
> Gary: "if it's Latin-based, your language should be flexional, not
> isolating."
>
> Frater which,  like Gary's conlang, is isolating and takes the bulk of its
> vocabulary from Latin & Greek, certainly does not adhere to Latin spelling.
>   It uses "K" or "S"  for Latin C (it doesn't have semivowels, so Latin QV
> is rendered simply as "K").
I personally dig using K wherever possible. I could've done it in
Montreiano, but to give that "related to Spanish feel" i felt I needed
to keep similar spelling conventions (although mine are a little more
like how Old Spanish used to be spelt).

--
You can turn away from me
but there's nothing that'll keep me here you know
And you'll never be the city guy
Any more than I'll be hosting The Scooby Show

Scooby Show - Belle and Sebastian

Replies