Dustfinger Batailleur said:

> I thought the Baha'i faith was most interested in Esperanto, conlang-wise.

This was certainly true 20-30 years ago. Now, not very many Baha’is learn

J. M. DeSantis said:

> I am, in
> fact, basing one of my conlangs on Arabic, for a graphic novel series
> I'm working on, and, as an American who only knows English and has had
> four years of Italian (most of which I've forgotten) you're "accessible"
> version might help me to better understand Arabic in order to recreate
> it's flavour.

> I hope you don't mind.

Of course not. Use Sim-Arabic in any way you see fit. I hope it helps you
with your graphic novel.

“stevo” said:

> In the verb section, you discuss "trilaterals". I've always seen these as
> "triliterals".

Oops! Yes, “triliterals” is correct. (I suppose I could blame this on my
spell checker, but I won’t.) My fault. Thanks for catching this.

R A Brown said:

> 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:

I guess it’s just my natural modesty. (Aw, shucks!) Alright, then,
Sim-Arabic IS a conlang.

… and R A  Brown continues:

> I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
> upper and lower case; it’s 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.

I don’t like digraphs, and I don’t like diacritics. When I decided to use
the Roman alphabet, it then became necessary to use both majuscule and
miniscule letters. Others may have chosen a different solution.

Thank you, all, for your comments!