li [David Marjanovic] mi tulis la

> > The details are still being worked out but it looks like C & J
> > will be used exclusive of each other, but right not it
> looks like J will
> > also be kept exclusive of Y and Z, and probably the DZ
> combination. C?
> > Probably exclusive of S and TS.
> >
> > This would also bring us up to 26 phonemes
>
> Well, not really, because several will lack minimal pairs.
> You just keep
> separate spellings to make the vocabulary easier to recognize.

Technically the minimal pairs exist. I'm just lumping certain phonemes
together logically for the purpose of vocabulary building to keep a
bigger degree of distinction between words. B is /b/ and P is /p/
however I'm avoiding creating words like "bin" *and* "pin". I have
recently discovered a few violations of my own rules that slipped
through by mistake that I plan on fixing soon however I'm also thinking
about allowing some in cases where they are not very likely to be
mistaken.


> While I am at it, I'll repeat my recommendation against
> having minimal pairs
> between W and V. Minimal pairs between P/B and F may also
> cause trouble for
> many people. On the other hand, minimal pairs between V and F
> are almost
> harmless, at least as long as W is available.

For vocabulary purposes I'm equating V to both W and F. This allows
"fen" and "wen" to coexist, but I won't use "ven". It also means that
with "vol", there won't be "fol" or "wol".

I'm considering a similar exclusivity arrangement for P/F and B/V, but
it would mean quite a bit of vocabulary rework. I'm trying to get the
vocabulary stabilized.


> Are there any minimal pairs between H and K, by the way?

Yes. H = /x/ and K = /k/. H, however has no voiced counterpart like K
does with G. Source words with /G/ are being brought in as either /g/
or /h/ depending upon the source language.


> > + Dropping the perjorative and ameliorative (-IH, -IQ) suffixes.
> > This idea was basically taken from E-o, but it looks like its use is
> > somewhat limited and could just as easily be handled with a
> qualifier.
>
> Good idea. Words for "bad/good" or "dreadful/fantastic" will
> handle that
> function at least as well.

That's basically what I was thinking.


> (Pet peeve alert: It's "pejorative", from Latin peior
> "worse"; no relation
> to "perjury".)

I've always seen it spelled that way. Apparently it's a common
mispelling. I'll write it like that for now.


> > On the other hand, it is convenient to package it all into a single
> > word.
>
> I suppose that's an important reason why not all languages
> are isolating.

I'll probably kill the suffixes, but I do admit I kind of like the idea
of having a particular suffix that had the sole semantic purpose of
pejoration or amelioration. This could be good for "name calling", etc.
in cases where someone wants to insult or complement something.


> I'm quite pleased with the other changes. Keep up the good work! :-)

Thanks \ sipas