Cheng-Zhong Su wrote:
 >> This is interesting. Correct me if I am wrong, but in short Chengzhong's
 >> arguments are:
 >> (1) Words should be short.
 >> (2) Tones should be used to make shorter words.
 >> (3) Compound words should be used a lot.
 > I am not sure why you deny the (2). My argument is that
 > once we recognize the tone then you may make any group
 > words short while being distinguished. For instance,
 > you may use co1=cover, co2=cove, co3=court and
 > co4=covert.

I don't deny it, but your proposal has problems. The main problem is 
that tones are difficult to learn. Mandarin's four contour tones 
(1=even, 2=rising, 3=dipping, 4=falling) are probably more difficult to 
learn than three "flat" tones (high, mid, low) of Yoruba and some other 
African languages. But no tones at all is even easier!

The point is that auxiliary language must be easy to learn and use for 
everybody. That's why it must be simple in every way!

 > The theory is that once we exploit our sense, especially
 > the sense of hearing, then we may accelerate our
 > thinking speed and increase our memory. It is the same
 > job that the computer doing every month.

Tone words will not help us think faster or increase our memory. Analog 
human brain does not work exactly like digital computer processor. 
That's why increasing people's thinking speed and memory is not as 
simple as increasing processing speed or adding more memory.

 > I donít know what you mean that Western auxiliary
 > languages usually do not meet the requirements?

I meant that in Western auxiliary languages:
(1) Words are long.
(2) There are no tones.
(3) Compound words are used a little.

 > I think every people or every nation want to accelerate
 > their thinking speed and increase their memory.


Risto Kupsala