Hi Jeff,

Great start!

I too found the orthography a bit aesthetically unappealing though, and
this may unfortunately be an impediment in your goal of making the original
writings more accessible for readers. Many readers, for instance, may be
turned off from approaching text that they find difficult to read (because
of the uppercase letters, asterisks, and letters like "R" on "x" that
aren't pronounced as one would expect).

If your goal is just to simplify Arabic texts for western readers, you
could transliterate the ghayn sound simply as "g" instead of "R", for
instance. Also, if you don't intend that your language be a stepping stone
to help readers learn classical Arabic (though it's fine if you do), you
could also see about collapsing a few letters like "h" and "H", "t" and
"T", "s" or "S", or "d" and "D". You'd have to figure out a way to
distinguish 3-letter roots that become similar, but you may also find out
that the number of ambiguous roots you form is surprisingly small. (I
haven't looked into the issue in depth, but certain arabic sounds like
"ayn" vs. "hamza" or "kaf" vs. "qaf" seem much more important to
differentiate for the sake of meaning compared to the ones I listed). In
this way, maybe you could reduce the number of capital letters you use
without having to use diacritics or digraphs.

Looking over your vocabulary list cursorily, I don't see words that would
become ambiguous if you collapsed the distinction of the few letters I
listed above ("h" and "H", "t" and "T", "s" or "S", or "d" and "D"). Maybe
I missed something though.

Likewise, you can get often get away without differentiating long and short
vowels. Where you can't, are you opposed to adding an accent over the vowel
or using "ee" or "oo"?

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you would need letters like "Y" or "W". These
seem only important if you intend that your language help readers trying to
learn the intricacies of classical Arabic, but they seem superfluous when
the goal is to just to help people connect with historical texts *without
having to learn Arabic*. Also, what do you use your letter "N" for? You
call it "tanween" but what purpose does it serve if you're not using the
Arabic tanween to mark indefinite nouns?

Looking forward to learning more about your conlang!

Adnan (or ^adnAn, I suppose :) )

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> My intention is that Sim-Arabic is ENTIRELY a written language; not a
> spoken one. Essentially, it is for translations from literary Arabic.
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > --- On *Sun, 2/3/13, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>* wrote:
> >
> > (snips)
> >
> > Two immediate reactions:
> > - I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
> > upper and lower case; it maybe OK for Klingon, but generally
> > I find it off-putting.  The advantages and disadvantages of
> > diacritics versus digraphs has often been debated on this
> > list. But I would prefer either solution to that of a mixed
> >   case system.
> >
> > RM That was my reaction too. When I have time, I'll try to make some
> > specific suggestions.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > - as you can see from my TAKE, if I'm going to simplify a
> > language I like to get rid of all inflexions, if possible.
> > IMO the so-called "Latino sine flexione" has retained too
> > many!  But that is a personal preference, I know.
> >
> > RM I don't object to a "few" inflections.... I'd have to examine the
> > materials more closely, however.  Offhand, I'm not at all sure it's
> > necessary to retain the masc/fem differences in the tenses, but that, I
> > know, is one of Arabic's features.....
> >
> > Do I gather (perhaps incorrectly?) that your intention is that Sim-Arabic
> > should be primarily a _literary_ rather than a spoken language????
> >
> >