R A Brown, On 28/11/2011 16:16:
> On 28/11/2011 12:12, And Rosta wrote:
>> To me it seems on-topic to ask "With what degree of
>> (orthographic) success could one script be used every
>> language; and what properties would such a script have;
>> and does Shwa have those properties?"
>
> ? But no one's said this is off topic!
>
> [snip]
>> the same script are probably off-topic, but it would be
>> wrong to prohibit all discussion of this,
>
> Certainly no one has suggested that it be prohibited!

It had been my impression from a whole slew of messages that people were saying it was off-topic and, iirc, a message from Sam countenanced its prohibition. But I don't have time to reread for quotes.

> I did express the opinion - and it is my _opinion_ only -
> that is more appropriate for Auxlang. Consider a slight
> re-wording:
> ""With what degree of (linguistic) success could one
> auxiliary language be used for every nation; and what
> properties would such a language have; and does Esperanto
> have those properties?"
>
> That would be ruled out of order. It is just my opinion that
> the Shwa project is analogous. That is why _I_ do not wish
> to debate it. But I have not said that it is off-topic.

That seems to me not a slight rewording but rather utterly different. There are clear linguistic criteria to the suitability of a script to a language, whereas there aren't clear linguistic criteria to the suitability of a language to a nation.

I don't object to you perceiving this strange analogy; I object only to an unwarranted clamour that might silence Peter. But you make it clear that you're not part of any such clamour.

> When I wrote:
> {quote}
> I have just posted a _draft_ of a revision I am doing of the
> Brx Phonology & Orthography page. See:
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Briefscript/PhonAndOrthog.html
>
> The 'guttural' approximant has, hopefully, a wide enough
> range of allophones to please most
>
> At present I have designated the phoneme as /ʕ/, but am open
> to counter-suggestions
>
> Also other comments welcomed.
> {/quote}
>
> I had just one reply. I guess I should be grateful for that

Joerg said, IIRC, that he couldn't think of any way of improving it. I gave it some thought and couldn't either, but decided that a "Nor me" message from me was not worth anybody's while.

My more general comment would be that the central question of Brx, namely the optimal phonetic realizations of syllabemes if the roman alphabet were used as a syllabary, derives from the accidents of your own intellectual history and is more a conlinguistic challenge than intrinsically interesting (e.g. other engelangers are unlikely to be moved to borrow from Brx). You are always at great pains to be clear about this, and not to claim otherwise; I mention it simply because it explains why Brx isn't of broader interest.

--And.