Print

Print


On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 11:45:32 -0600, Stephen Rice <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>Larry has already responded well to this. You now use <r> to represent
>an original <l>; this would just mean using <l> to represent an
>original <r>.

I chose R as the base because a lowercase L can often resemble a capital I.

>"Animate" originally meant "provide with a soul/breath." I would
>expect you to use "love" (n.) as the basis for "love" (v.).

Angos isn't derived from Latin. But I suppose a better word than 'soul' would 
be 'passion'.

>>>The numbers aren't as congested as I expected, though tin/kin is
>>>asking for trouble.
>>
>> How so?
>
>It's fairly easy to mishear /t/ for /k/ and vice versa.

I'll probably just redo the number system. It hasn't really changed since the 
language's creation, being thrown together rather haphazardly.

>>>I don't see the need to interrupt normal word-order by fronting
>> interrogatives.
>>
>> Consistency mostly, but I see where you're coming from.
>
>But why front any interrogatives? Why not leave them where they would
>normally go in the sentence?

Really, just consistency and simplicity. Just being able to say that 'all 
interrogatives are fronted'.

>If someone takes the time to make an auxlang, I'll generally take the
>time to examine it. Thanks for not throwing a tantrum about the
>comments. Some do.
>
>Steve

I really appreciate this. It's always good to have constructive criticism.

Ben