Re: Ygyde is easier to learn than any other language

li [simple_language@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 mi tulis la ...

> David Wolff wrote:
> 
> > Yes, I understand that there is more to a language than its fonts.  I
> > just picked this one particular bit to comment on.  I'm sure, however,
> > that you will "adamantly oppose testing" of the font's readability.
> 
> You don't understand Ygyde. Ygyde is a quest for linguistic
> perfection. The fact that existing Ygyde font is unsuitable for
> dyseidetics is an im****tant argument, but it is merely one argument
> among many arguments. A font that is optimized for the dyseidetics
> would probably be unsuitable for the non-dyseidetics. There are many
> possible solutions: special Ygyde font that is based on the existing
> Ygyde font, glyphs having different colors (my favorite), etc. etc...

How about a more practical criticism.  There isn't a single
machine outside of yours that has the proper font loaded for it
(do you even have a keyboard driver to accompany?, for every
platform?).  Even so, are there codepoints yet assigned by
Unicode?  Well, so much for trying to use this script on any
common  (or even not so common) equipment.  Esperanto's daft
hats are bad enough, but a whole new script?  At least E-o's
cir***flexed consonants have assigned codepoints in Unicode.

I'm not opposed to conscripts, even a priori ones, (*see below)
but wouldn't for one moment give them any serious consideration
for auxlang usage.   There's just too much equipment out there
already, and it must be accomodated.  



*  A couple of my conscripts: 
	Deini:

http://www.nutter.net/dana/language/deini_script.pdf
	Euromniskript: 	

http://www.nutter.net/dana/language/euromniskript.pdf


-------------------------------------------------
deinx nxtxr

LI SASXSEK LATIS. (http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek)