Print

Print


steve rice wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/18/09, deinx'nxtxr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of steve rice
>>> That danger exists, but it can be minimized. I admit that I was
>>> surprised to see LFN fall into that trap. But I think the problem
>>> was that it was a little too accommodating in places.
>>> Among other things, strange as it may seem, I think it would've
>>> helped if they had used <k>: that seems to ward off Romance
>>> tinkering.
>> LFN does offer <k> as an option but I too wish it would have been 
>> the standard.  The main objection to <c> has nothing to do with 
>> tinkering so much as the fact that it has too many different uses 
>> across different languages.
>> 
> However, the standard pronunciation of <c> in Romance languages
> (LFN's base) is /k/. There's also a soft pronunciation, and that
> varies a lot, but it's the sequence <ch> that is a mystery.
> 
> In any case, there has to be something that serves notice that an
> auxlang isn't just a messed up X language. This is one of
> Occidental's advantages: while Ia (at least in one common dialect)
> tries to look Romance, Occ hits you with Germanic items early on.
> Only an idiot won't take the hint. 
>
There are a lot of idiots out there! :-)

> But it also has too much Romance content to be pulled toward Germanic
> easily. The balance is excellent.
> 
> If LFN had used <k> from the outset, it would've reinforced the 
> creoloid feel and helped maintain autonomy. The Eists are right about
> that: autonomy is vital. That's why I have a divergent grammar, a 
> rather different phonology and semantics, and a sharply different 
> orthography: although the result is intelligible to anglophones, it 
> clearly is not English.
>