On 03/02/2013 00:07, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> In the verb section, you discuss "trilaterals". I've
> always seen these as "triliterals".

Yes, they are.  Trilaterals have three sides (tria latera),
whereas triliterals have three letters (tres litteras).
That is in Arabic & Hebrew and related scripts, where only
consonants normally are written, the verb-forms have three

Now, three-sided verbs?  Interesting idea     ;)

On 02/02/2013 19:10, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
> Essentially what I did was to create a conlang based on a
> single source language: Arabic. I simplified and
> regularized the grammar,

So why "Not really a conlang"?

Peano's "Latino sine flexione" is simplified Latin and it
has long been classed as a conlang:

My own TAKE is simplified and regularized ancient Greek. I
certainly consider it a conlang:

> and adopted a Romanized alphabet.

..and I didn't even Romanize TAKE.  Writing your simplified
& regularized Arabic in Roman letters surely makes it even
more of a conlang!

> I call it “Sim-Arabic” (because I’m not very imaginative
>  when it comes to naming my conlangs).

Maybe - but IMO Sim-Arabic is a conlang.

> If you’re interested, I’d appreciate it if you would
> take a look and return comments.

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 fund 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.
- 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.

> (To avoid the delay caused by the email digest, please CC
> my address in your reply.)


"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]