On 18 Oct 2011, at 08:31, R A Brown wrote:

> On 17/10/2011 23:00, Michael Everson wrote:
>> I have been unable to find out anything concrete about Brx to know whether it is interesting or not.
> 
> Of those conlangs mentioned on this list over the years since I've been here, some are not very interesting to me and others have grabbed my interest.  It's a somewhat subjective thing - possibly what interests you will not be the same as what interests me, though there may be some overlap.

Sure; that was not my complaint.

> But one thing we can, I think, be sure about is that *every conlang is interesting to its individual author*.

Indeed so. 

> Brx has had a long gestation. It is the latest incarnation of my longstanding "briefscript' project; a look back in the Conlang archives will reveal this project had its genesis way back in the mid 1950s!

Yes, but I can't actually find out anything about Brx. Samples. Rules. 

> Also the scheme I had been developing came in for justified
> criticism and was, accordingly, modified.  Later other
> changes took place and eventually two version of the
> language emerged:
> - BrScA, which continued the tradition of modified
> 'briefscript' of the 1990s;
> - BrScB, which revived an idea I had had in the late 1950s
> (and well _before_ I had come across Babm) namely the use of
> the Roman alphabet as a syllabary.
> 
> It became apparent, however, that the abbreviations BrSc,
> BrScA and BrScB were not only awkward to type but also were
> being taken a the actual names of the languages and being
> given all sorts of pronunciations!      ;)

Um, yes, yes, there's been history about the script. Or language. Or orthography. I've found this history on the web. I haven't found an actual description. Not even enough to really get what it is about (script/language/orthography).

> This was clearly unsatisfactory and in January 2005 the
> abbreviations BrSc, BrScA and BrScB were abandoned, and in
> an email to the list I wrote:
> {quote}
> I propose that:
> 1. as a generic term for both possible developments, I
> revert to the term briefscript instead of BrSc;
> 2. the language hitherto dubbed 'BrScA' be named _bax_;
> 3. the language hitherto dubbed 'BrScB' be named _brx_.
> {/quote}

Yes....

> I continued to develop _bax_, which was pronounced as
> /pi'a:çi/ and anglicized as Piashi, until October 2009 when,
> in an email to the list, I formally abandoned it. I was
> dissatisfied with certain aspects of it, particularly the
> compromises I had made over its orthography and
> pronunciation and the consequent unsatisfactory rules for
> vowels in hiatus.

OK....

> In August 2011 it occurred to me that by adopting the
> earlier BrScB scheme I could avoid these problems, and thus
> Brx was revived. The name Brx, as those who follow the story
> know, is actually pronounced ['puluçi]     :)

OK, so I know the name and its pronunciation, Evidently it is a syllabary based on Latin letters?

> As Jörg wrote two days ago:
> {quote}
> It would be a pity if you died without having developed Brx
> to reasonable degree of "completeness" (not that any conlang
> could ever be truly complete, of course).  You have invested
> so much work in it, it needs to get done before you pass away.
> {/quote}
> 
> It is interesting to me and, I know, of some interest to a
> few others, but may well not grab general interest.

Is there a link to an actual description of Brx?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/