> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marjanovic [mailto:david.marjanovic@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:45
> To: sasxsek@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [sasxsek] Re: HA RI SASYSEK
>
>
> > > I should have added that Lojban uses <y> for /@/.
> >
> > That's lojban. This isn't.
>
> The point is that there is a precedent. You explained <q>
> partly by citing
> the precedent of Ceqli.

That only means it's been done before. Ceqli gave me the idea to use Q.
I wouldn't call anything from another conlang a "precedent" because most
conlangs are not really being used beyond the hobbyist stage. Q & X are
the two most disposible letters of the Roman alphabet so I chose them
for /N/ and /@/. In any case it's really not important because I see no
reason why this should get in the way of learning the language.


> > ....

> > Originally there were only supposed to be the basic 5 vowels. The
> > schwa was later included because I wanted something distinct for
> > consonant buffering. It is used for forming proper nouns
> as well, but
> > will not be used for "native" SASXSEK roots.
>
> The problem of "consonant buffering" also exists when words
> containing
> consonant clusters are imported (like most of the chemical
> elements in the
> dictionary). I don't think having a one-morpheme phoneme will
> decrease
> confusion so much that it'll be worth the effort.

Again, this doesn't really affect the learning process or make the
language less usable. I could very well have just left X out completely
and made the schwa buffer optional (as in Vorlin), but that would leave
words like "SASSEK", but now you have two "S"'s run together so a forced
separation of consonants was used to make sure each phoneme is fully
pronounced. There is also an optional schwa at the end of words that
end with a consonant, but because it's optional it is left unmarked.

Scientific word roots, as well as some others, are still considered
native roots so one of the 5 basic vowels has been used to make them
conform. Which vowel was used has been mostly a judgement call.
Sometimes a preceding or following vowel was repeated, but in some cases
the vowel used was based on some existing (usually Japanese) form of the
word.


> > > I don't know if any Sinitic languages have it... Mandarin
> doesn't...
>
> (Neither does Spanish.)

Again, they can use [s]. This is no different from what Spanish
speakers do when they learn English.

I found my allphone list in some of the documentation, but it is
outdated so I'll probably have to completely redo it before I can post
it anywhere.


> > > Ah, now I see -- but do we need that distinction?
> >
> > Well, yes. RI is an adjective while RU is a preposition.
>
> I'd simply regard both as "particles".
>

(note: RA, RI and RU have recently been changed to LA, LI and LU)

LI (ending with -I like all other adjectives) merely adds a
qualifier to a noun claiming it to be the name of something rather than
the thing itself.

LU (-U = preposition) Attaches the name of the thing to the thing
itself.

LA (-A = conjunction) tells the listener that what follows is a
direct quotation.


> On the topic of prepositions I recommend sections K4 and L,
> especially L4,
> of http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/.

I'm familiar with the site. Terms like "adjective" and "adverb" are
used mostly out of convenience and really do not represent the true
structure of Sasxsek which is something more like this simplified
example:

Root: Word representing a concept.
Qualifier: (-I words) Word that qualifies another.
"Conjunction": (-A words) Word that works to piece together a
sentence.
"Preposition": (-U words) Word to show direction, location or
sentence function.


This is why adjectives and adverbs both end with "-I". The "-E" suffix
is only used when a qualifier is qualifiying another qualifier.