At 17:07 11/10/97, Mark P. Line wrote: >James Chandler wrote: ......... >> And then it must be taken into consideration that any >> non-European vocabulary would have to be fitted into a >> European (continental) orthography. > >Why would an IAL have to have a continental European orthography? And >even if it did, what are the salient features of a continental European >orthography that you believe must be adhered to in an IAL? What in any case is meant by a "European (continental) orthography"? When I look across the Channel to the European continent I see a lot of _different_ orthographies? Does it mean we pick one of them - say Dutch, French, Hungarian, Lithuanian - and use it? Is there supposed to be something common to all the continental orthographies? If so what is it? I'm sorry - I'm _not_ nitpicking. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT. [snip] >> 1. Stick strictly to European-based IALs (I must say that I >> find this continued use of the term Euroclone slightly >> unpleasant and derogatory). > >Good. It's meant to be found slightly unpleasant and derogatory. I, for >one, will continue to use it as long as any person associated with a >Euroclone speaks of IAL's as though they had to be conlangs ..... and strictly European based conlangs at that. >(a usage >which some of _us_ find slightly unpleasant and derogatory). AMEN! Ray.