If I understand it correctly, Inlis is to be purely analytical in structure. 

What is your reason for that? 

What natural language is purely analytical?

-----Original Message-----
From: International Auxiliary Languages [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Rice
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: Defining the a-posteriori -- and how to use it.

On 7/28/14, Scott Raney <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Stephen Rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  But mostly I'll try to
>> inculcate a dislike of synonyms, and I'll probably defer the 
>> importation rules until fairly late in the textbook, by which time 
>> the learner will (I hope) be used to the core vocabulary and willing 
>> to use it over importations.
> Textbook?  For Inlis?  If you need a beta-tester, I'm your man...

I'm currently updating my notes and wordlist, so I'll probably go for a general description before a textbook. But before any of that, I'll be annoying people here with a series of posts about Inlis, most of them explaining how it's supposed to work and asking for suggestions on some problem areas. The subject will be INLIS whatever, so consider yourselves warned. I'll start with a basic orientation and then move on to more technical matters. So rejoice--and get your hip waders, because your boots won't be enough.