Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>>
Yes, I know - and it'll be with some reluctance that I abandon the CVCv
scheme, if indeed I do.  My main concerns about the CVCv scheme are:
(a) in order to use all 26 letters of the current Roman alphabet, I have to
include some sounds and/or contrasts that I would rather avoid in an IAL;
(b) it puts a constraint on the number of root morphemes and will probably
mean compounding more often than natlangs - and that runs counter to
brevity. If only I dare use tones a la Chinoise.  If being an IAL were
not one of the three goals, I'd do so without a moment's hesitation.
<<<
ok, so why not first consider languages with a finite register of root words,
which you certainly have already perused? arabic triconsowhatever, hebrew
shoresh, common sinojapanese kanjis, sumerian epigraphy, etc. may give you an
idea of the needed number of root words. japanese is around 3000 (1845 main ones
+ the ones you need know to read specialized literature), sumerian is around
750, etc. sumerian ideograms and kanjis may have many different meanings, but
still, we may consider that millenaries have selected the reasonable number of
them needed to express these langs. then you could expand the number of CVCv
roots by making them C(S)VCv: |tuat|, |kien|, |luop| etc. that would certainly
double the number of root words. or else, you could
tell pleremes from cenemes with a "signal" such as a reserved vowel or
semi-vowel or whatever else. maybe determining the grammar first may help you
fix the required number of primary roots: "con-tain-er" vs. "bowl",
"hunt-ed-one" vs. "prey", etc. it's amazing how many useful compound words root
nouns like "species", "building", "tool", "master", "content", "container", etc.
can yield. however, it feels weird to coin such root nouns when you already have
root verbs like "to pertain", "to build", "to master", "to contain", etc. yet
esperanto did the same to some extent with suffixes like -isto, -ero, -ilo, etc.
which you would think should derive themselves from verbs like "to practice",
"to do" and "to use". anyway, there are plenty of options.

>>>
The present ideas are, however, _experimental_.  As our politicians are so fond
of saying: "At this stage, nothing is ruled in and nothing is being ruled out."
<<<
sounds interesting.

Mathias
http://takatunu.free.fr