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.

>> 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).