Ray Brown skripted:
> >- I don't think the inclusion of the sound /z/ is a good idea at all.
> >It's difficult to pronounce for S-speakers, and possibly for many
> >other people. This is like esperanto H^. It's easy for me to
> >pronounce, but I wouldn't include it in any IAL simply cause there is
> >a lot of people who has trouble with it.
> I agree with Marcos 100%.
> Ignore the Scandinavians if you must (tho I think you shouldn't), but an
> actual natIAL like Spanish should not be done lightly.
I am not ignoring the Scandinavians completely. But their numbers are v.
small compared to S speakers, so it is mainly the latter who will
influence the debate in the direction of dropping the [s]/[z] distinction.
> Personally I agree with Marcos about its being inappropriate in any IAL. I
> certainly couldn't take such an conIAL seriously.
I must say I don't understand the strength of this objection. To say you
find the [s]/[z] distinction so awful you could not take seriously any
IAL which retains it is really v. extreme. In my view, making [s]/[z] one
phoneme, and spelling everything with S, as J did, is not an unreasonable
way to proceed. I just think it would be better, on the whole, to
reintroduce this distinction, which only S does not know, and most
importantly to introduce the letter Z in writing, to preserve the intern'l
written forms of no few important words. We distinguish between [b] and
[v]: would Ray also be unable to take seriously any IAL which retained
I have read through pretty much the whole of 27 issues of N-iste, and I
must say I found the various conventions for the values of S to be one of
the most distracting things in the whole experience. A lot of the time
I hesitated as to how to read S: as [s] or [z]. In words which in E have
[z], I fumbled every time, first pronouncing with the more usual [s], then
having to correct myself and pronounce [z] instead. It will be *less*
distracting to have a regular alphabetic value of [s] in all such words,
and pronounce them like S speakers do. Remember, in N30 it is permissible
to pronounce SIMPLI, SITA and many others with [z]: is that really what
> >Yes, I've already prevented from the use of "tu" in any way that is
> >not pers.pronoun. It's a bad false friend.
> >I simply go with the natural -r.
> AMEN - so would I.
-(e)r seems to have more problems than TU. Why do Romance langs often need
to supplement -r with a preposition: because the ending is not strong
enough? Best to follow E here.
> >>>>nos - nor.
> >>>>vus - vur, e
> >>>>les - ler; e me adi
> >>>>los - lor,
> >>>>las - lar - tre pleni e simpli systeme.
> >>Not bad eh?
> >Well, I'm not very fond of this irregularity.
> Nor I.
It's not the irregularity I object to so much, as the final -r, and the
fact that NOR and VUR are still totally arbitrary. And add to that the
fact that the plural mark -S is lost in these forms. -I is certainly
> >>>2.17. ...allow an optional nominative
> >>>first person pronoun yo. The N28 first person
> >>>pronoun me is the only one which is very unnatural
> >>>as subject, and so those who feel uncomfortable
> >>>with me may use yo from S I if they wish.
> >I'm surprised with this. From my point of view this is really
> >unnecessary and confussionish.
> AMEN - I was just as surprised at this as Marcos. I agree it is
> unnecessary and will lead to confusion.
Whether it is necessary or not depends on where you are positioning yourself
in the schematic/natural spectrum. But certainly I don't want to establish
any *compulsory* distinctions between nom. and acc. I am wondering
whether it wouldn't be best to ditch ME and use YO everywhere: certainly
using the nom. form in the acc. would be no more strange than using the
acc. form in the nom.
[log in to unmask]