On 3/18/11, James Chandler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Nothing is being removed or invalidated; no pre-existing form or rule
>> simply because they're in common use.
>> Properly speaking, <ĥ> hasn't
>> been eliminated or "silenced" (are you actually serious about likening
>> it to a silent letter?); rather, alternative roots have been suggested
>> (a permissible move)
> Hmm.. looks a lot like a REFORM to me. And I seem to remember that those
> are banned in Esp.
is being changed. New roots are being added to the lexicon; that's
always been allowed. And had you read the Fundamento, you would know
that Dr. Z himself expressly permitted such a move.
Real languages are messy. Tidy ones only exist in the minds of
> I read the section at the website and I must say I've rarely seen such a
> mess. There is no single rule for eliminating h^ and worse still, for some
> words it doesn't even seem POSSIBLE to eliminate it.
textbook writers and grammarians.
Bear in mind that <ĥ> is *rare*: in the context of a living language
whose users don't all agree it should be avoided, a rule isn't that
big an issue. Who needs a rule for a handful of relatively uncommon
roots? The common ones are already covered. And as to impossibility,
that's nonsense. There's always a way to obviate a lexical problem if
you're determined to do so; learn some natlangs. They do it.
Especially Chinese, from what I've heard.
Consider this: if Eists wanted to eliminate the hats, it would
technically be possible to do so by proposing alternative forms
without those letters. But there are so many roots with hats that it
would mean adding a few thousand roots. Now, that's a practical
impossibility! But it would technically be laŭfundamenta. Doing it
only for <ĥ>, on the other hand is quite possible. The question in
both cases is, do I want to bother? And for most Eists, the answer is