Re: a more "romajish" notation
Dr Maggie Hellstrom, Lund 
Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:46:31 +0100 (MET)

These are my comments to the recent postings on "romaji" notation etc...:

I don't know 'bout the rest of you, but I like the results of "our" previous 
work better (by which I mean essentially the Marketa/Rob/Saul efforts) than the 
"modified" ideas which have been recently put forward, perhaps partly because I 
have been spending some time and effort trying to understand what has been 
suggested earlier, and now I just don't feel like starting "from scratch" again. 

Why not just stay with what has been suggested, develop it further and try it 
all (grammar, vocabulary _and_ writing) out thoroughly. Then it will hopefully 
become obvious what isn't working too well, and we can change that. This has 
been my experience with developing technical stuff -- one really needs to "get 
the show on the road" before the serious design flaws become apparent... Too 
much playing around with definitions at the start only creates confusion and 
dissonance - and I was under the impression that those who have been working 
hard on the Vulcan language (for several years, actually) have really come quite 
far. Let's give them a chance to come up with a "beta" version!

Certainly, it is good that many people are interested in the project of creating 
a Vulcan language with all its components, but I must say I don't really see the 
point in having a large number of separate initiatives going on in parallel, 
especially not in this case since the task requires much specialist knowledge, 
and considering that the number of people (usefully) involved is quite small. In 
a "competition scenario", much time will have to be spent on examining and 
comparing the various language "flavors", time that could be much better spent 
on making one "end product" as good as possible.

Regarding the detail of discussion about individual sounds, I have said before 
that I don't think we'll come further without having a set of concrete examples. 
The working group (again referring to Marketa, Rob and Saul) agree, and will 
present something. However, to call this an "extranious" debate (I think young 
Sorik meant "extraneous," by the way...) is going too far - this is a 
linguistics-related mailing list, and IMHO any successful exchange of ideas 
hinges on making sure we all have a common set of references (not only as 
regards pronounciation but also the terminology needed to describe and discuss 
the whole subject matter)! Surely, that is a logical standpoint?! 

Maggie