Dear Jacques,

While I'm aware that your style of writing is a mark of difference and
freedom, I took the liberty of arranging your latest email into
paragraphs and removing the empty lines. This made it easier for me to
read and reply to. Hope that's ok.

Jacques (>):
> L'interlingua clasic ha 'non' in parola curente
> pro l'anglese 'not'
> e mentiona 'ne' pro sinonimo acceptabile de 'non'.
> Pro eufonia 'non' ante un vocale sona meliore
> e 'ne' ante un consone sona meliore.
> 'ne' evidentemente es familiare al franceses
> e 'ne' es anque tre familiare al populos slave
> como elemento de negatione.

Somehow I doubt that _not_ recognizing "ne" or "non" will ever be a
large problem for a potential speaker of an IAL. It doesn't much
matter which one is chosen, by me. But choosing both for different
situations is unwise, if you ask me.

I'm not sure I agree about "non" in front of a vowel and "ne" before a
consonant sounding better than the other way around. Personally, I
can't say I hear any difference, euphonically, between "non estas" and
"non parolas", or between "ne estas" and "ne parolas".

> Personalemente io prefera 'ne' a 'non' pro le secunde ratione
> e proque 'ne' es idealemente curte e se termina con un vocale.
> 'ne' es anque l'optione del esperanto, del ido, etc.

We're really discussing fine-tuning here, if we're considering one of
the advantages of "ne" over "non" to be its shortness. I don't really
see why ending with a vowel would constitute an advantage or a
disadvantage for "ne".

> Ma 'ne es' significante 'is not' teoricamente in interlingua,
> non me place eufonicamente;
> 'n'es' es posibile.
> Que cosa pensate vos ?

I still think simplicity should trump euphonicalness in this case. Pick one.

// Carl