Javier wrote:
> >
> >If I'm reading this correctly, |x| is a voiced palatal fricative! I'd
> >that mightily difficult to distinguish from [j], and I bet I'm not alone.
>Well, sorry, I guess I should have offered an ASCII-IPA
>equivalent for each phoneme, so as to avoid misunderstandings
>such as this.

You should have.

>The chart I offered was meant just as a quick
>Letter <x> would represent not a palatal fricative but a
>postalveolar one, that is /Z/, as in English "meaSure",
>"aZure" or French "j".

Good to hear.

> >In
> >addition, any language that uses |x| for anything voiced ought to be
> >IMHO.
>May I know why on Earth?!

Well, because I've got an irrational personal dislike for the idea, and
because |x| prototypically indicates voiceless sounds.

>According to that, English ought to be "shot", because it uses
><x> for something voiced in some cases (think of "example" and
>"xylophone"), not to mention Albanian, which uses <x> for
>/dz/ and "xh" for /dZ/.

I've never denied I hate English orthography. I don't now much of Albanian
orthography, but the use of |x| and |xh| is at the very least quite
counterintuitive for people used to more mainstream uses of the Latin
alphabet. If I'm correct in assuming you chose said script because it's the
most well-known in the world, one'd expect you to use as "normal" values of
the letters as possible to maximize this advantage.

> > except I'd still hate |x| to indicate anything voiced.
>I'm waiting for undefeatable arguments against the use
>of letter x for something voiced; I mean, other than your
>personal taste which is of course totally irrelevant.

The "IMHO" rather suggests a personal opinion, doesn't it?

Still, using |x| for something as odd as [Z] does work against the point of
using a well-known alphabet.

One possible rejuggle would be |x|=/S/, |j|=/Z/, |y|=/j/ and ||=/@/ (|| is
e-diaeresis, in case the mailer mangles it). Would feel rather less exotic
to me, at least.

> >It's quite obvious you'ven't tried to achieve a maximally universal set
> >contrastive sounds, but are real sure your IAL ought to distinguish
> >/l/ and /r/? And exactly what kind of "r" are we speaking about? From
> >chart above I'd have to guess it's a dental trill.
>Well, I've already posted in several other places very
>extensive and detailed arguments to support the choice of
>phonemes, which by no means is arbitrary. If you want I'll
>paste those explanations here.

Well, I don't suspect you of picking phonemes arbitrarily; I'm just curious
as to the justification for including these two.
> >>4) Syllable structure: (C)V(C)
> >>(glottal stop inherent in syllable-initial vowels)
> >>
> >Does this mean that the glottal stop, in fact, isn't a phonemic
>Yes, the glottal stop in fact isn't a phonemic consonant;
>what you have instead is pre-glottalized syllable-initial
>allophones for the vowels.

Which leaves the question why it appeared in the phoneme chart, then. Not to
mention why indicate it in the orthography.

> >>Any comment? :-)
> >
> >My initial impression is that this's gonna look like the result of a
> >run-of-the-mill euroclone IAL secretly dating Chinese. :-)
>Have you had a look at the sample sentences yet?
>If those sentences look to you like a euroclone IAL, then
>anything will.

You hadn't posted any sample sentences when I wrote the above (or at least
they hadn't rached me). Still, the phonology is quite European (which's of
course not necessarily bad), while the monosyllabicity is reminicent of


MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: