> I'm familiar with that site. I like what the author has too say but
> consider him a bit too critical of Z. Given the time, place and
> circumstances of its creation, I would have to say E-o turned out
> fairly well.

>>
x) _Isn't it unfair to expect Zamenhof to have known about modern
linguistics?_
Sure; there was essentially no chance that a nineteenth-century European
polyglot was going to design anything worth keeping - it's like
criticising some Victorian inventor's efforts to build a steam-powered
helicopter. Except that I don't know of any organisations dedicated to
promoting gyrolocomotives as the best possible form of transport...
<<
From http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/n.html

> > First is the choice of <x> for /@/. As a better choice <y> has been
> > suggested.

I should have added that Lojban uses <y> for /@/.

> This has been explained in previous postings as well as on
> alt.language.artificial.

I have read the entire archives of this list, and I think I have addressed
all arguments I have found there. Where can I find
alt.language.artificial? I've never been to Usenet.

> <x> is really only a buffer to separate consonants, not connector for
> compounds. I wanted to mark the separation to avoid the tendency to
> run them together whereas there is an optional schwa after final
> consonants that can be used for those who are used to speaking in all
> open syllables. Some compounds do not have <X> because the first
> component already ends with a vowel.

Why is this a reason not to use /@/ as a phoneme like every other?

> Also, there are pairs of consonants which are used exclusivly of each
> other. For example there is the word "SEK", but you will not see
> "SEG", "ZEK", or "ZEG". Those pairs are P/B, T/D, K/G, F/V, S/Z and
> R/L.

I see.

(However, languages with only one set of stops seem to be quite rare. Most
apparently have two -- although the features used to tell them apart vary
quite a lot.)

> There are major languages like Arabic, Russian, and even English that
> do have /z/ so I wouldn't call it "rare".

I don't know if any Sinitic languages have it... Mandarin doesn't...

> [s] is an allophone of /z/ anyway.

Good.

> > What is the difference between <ri> and <ru>? I can't figure it out.
>
> RI (adj.)is used to introduce a proper noun.
>
> ri misisipi
> Mississippi
>
> RU is used to connect a proper noun to its noun counterpart:
>
> rivut ru misisipi
> river by-the-name-of Mississippi
> The Mississippi River

Ah, now I see -- but do we need that distinction?

--
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++