Salvete, omnes!
Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> Here's a second reply after the whole matter undeservedly got
> short shrift in my first one.
>
Thanks.
[snip]
>
> Yes; high vowels are phonetically much more salient than low ones.
> There are languages in which unstressed low vowels went to
> cloudcuckooland and unstressed high vowels didn't.
Exactly so.
[snip]
>
> So we have: 00 -> /i/, 01 -> /E/, 10 -> /u/, 11 -> /O/.
Exactly.
>
>
>>--------------------------------
>>CONSONANTS
>>
>>The language has eight consonants, arranged in four series (0 to 3) of
>>two grades,
>>thus:
>> #0 #1 #2 #3
>> Sonorant: (zero) /l/ /n/ /m/
>>Obstruent: /k/ /s/ /t/ /p/
>
>
> Nice. AFAIK, these are the seven most frequent consonants in the
> world's languages.
That is the idea. I know Jeff's paper was concerned with a near-optimal
Loglan _syntax_, but why not give it also a near-optimal phonology as well?
[snip]
>
> Not simply set the MSB to 1 - complement the whole bit pattern!
> That rocks!
Thanks!
I had considered just setting the MSB to 1, but as one set of two grades
is the complement of the other, it seemed to me more logical (and we are
considering a Loglan) to complement the bit pattern.
[snip]
>
> Yes, this is much nicer than Jeff Prothero's naive phonology,
> even if there are more syllables.
Thanks for the encouraging remarks. I am half tempted to actually
develop 'brz' as a briefscript. But maybe the system is more suited to a
loglang.
I must have another read of Jeff's paper and see if I cannot do
something more than just give brz a "hexadecimal phonology".
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY