jan aleksan:I think s/z/ŝ/ž can be added to the list

I think Spanish has no Ŝ sound.

darkweasel:

jan aleksan:I think s/z/ŝ/ž can be added to the list

I think Spanish has no Ŝ sound.

Nah I think he means "s, z, ŝ, or ĵ", as if they are allophonic variants of the same sound (unfortunately, there is no symbol for such generic allophonic groups of sounds).

Here is some info on the most common phonemes in human language, it's not the link I wanted though (Murphy's law!) but in X-SAMPA/IPA-ish notation:
-p,b
-t,d
-k,g
-tS (ĉ)
-? (glottal stop)
-f
-s
-S (ŝ)
-m
-n
-ñ (nj)
-N (ng)
-w
-l,r
-j (not ĝ but j)
(and I also believe that h,ĥ comes in there too)
Typically a language has:
-5-11 stops
-1-4 fricatives
-2-4 nasals
-4 others
----

I'd say that they're all pretty good. It does show how vestigial EO's sound system is, which I guess helps EO stay a bit "natural" - after all, having a sound set EVERY language has would just be boring - that's why things like Chinese, Hawaiian, Japanese, Russian, German and those South African click languages and English are all so incredibly cool.

WALS

And the same thing for constructed languages: CALS

By the way, I feel that when you look at many alphabets letter created, you see they are much more phonologically ordered than the latin alphabet. (for example our bopomofo system)

Is there a reason why latin alphabet wasn't in order like: aeioubpmfdtnlgkh... and so on?

@ Lyz - not sure, but I think it has something to do with the evolution of written language in Europe.

For example (bolding = pattern):
We start off with this baby, the Proto Canaanite alphabet. This is where the Latin alphabet, Greek alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet, Hebrew Alphabet, and probably the alphabet of a few other semitic languages stems from.

- Then, the Phonecian Alphabet (Semitic Language) (Latinised due to lack of font):

a, b, g, d*, h, w*2, z, h., t., i, k, l, m, n*3, s, ', p, s., q*4, r, sh, t

- After this we have the Greek Alphabet:

Α, Β, Γ, Δ, Ε, F, Υ, Ζ, Η, Θ, Ι, Κ, Λ, Μ, Ν, Ξ, Ο, Π, Ϻ, Q, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Φ, Χ, Ψ, Ω.

- After this we have the Cumaean Alphabet:

Α, Β, Γ, Δ, Ε, Ϝ, Ζ, Η, Θ, Ι, Κ, Λ, Μ, Ν, Ο, Π, Ϻ, Ϙ, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ, Φ, Χ, Ψ

- After this we have the Old Latin Alphabet

A, B, C, D, E, F, Z, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, X
(in Classical Latin, the "Z" gets replaced with "G" because they thought having C do all the work and having a letter they never use was stupid. K also gets pretty much forgotten due to the now perfectly available C)

- And then we have the latest version (sans accent symbols etc):
- A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z (keeping in mind J is a cursive form of I, U is a cursive form of V and W is a cursive form of VV).

* b, g and d are all voiced consonants.
*2 h, w are related to vowel sounds (h being sort of a silent vowel, and w being a semi-vowel linked to "u" due to the Semitic nature of the script
*3 All similar consonants, in that they have a sort of vocalic nature compared to other consonants
*4 this "q" is a gutteral "k" sound, not the same as the later Greek and Latin "Q" (In greek, used before back-vowels, in Latin, used with the "w" sound to differentiate from "cu")

And we still haven't gotten into things like the Germanic and Italic runic alphabets yet But basically, the alphabet has retained virtually the same order for ever, and the main things that have changed are things like H becoming an E and eventually an F, the "Kh" of Ancient Greek becoming a "hx" in Greek and a "ks" in Latin, and a whole lot of other modifications made when a Semitic alphabet became an Indo-European alphabet.

Puna does have a small amount of letters which makes it easier for people to speak it. But Arpee thinks that as well as a small amount of letters, a small amount of words will make a language as easily as possible. He says that if a language is to be global then there should be as few words as possible to memorize. He thinks even 100 words (like Toki Pona) is too much for an international language.

I think Toki Pona is ridiculous with 120 words, this is just crazy. It doesn't work...

In case anyone's interested in seeing a cool alphabet, this one is ordered to be a poem about two dudes killing each other .

k1attack:Puna does have a small amount of letters which makes it easier for people to speak it. But Arpee thinks that as well as a small amount of letters, a small amount of words will make a language as easily as possible. He says that if a language is to be global then there should be as few words as possible to memorize. He thinks even 100 words (like Toki Pona) is too much for an international language.

Well, I reckon Arpee is pretty much wrong then. A complete language has to be about more than just saying "hello! how are you! life is good!" A complete language must be capable of expressing specific and/or abstract information. Puna is obviously a failure in this regard.

It is not necessarily true that an 18-word language is "easier" than a 118-word language like Toki Pona or even a several-thousand word language like Esperanto. Try to translate the Gettysburg Address or Hamlet or Genesis into your 18-word language and then come back and tell me how easy it is. Just knowing the 18 words of your language doesn't count; you have to be able to USE your language to teach and learn information before you can say that you know that language. Ease of learning has to be balanced against ease of clear expression. So many conlang hobbyists miss this.

It's all well and good to just say, "oh complexity is always bad, and simplicity always good, so just always express things in simple terms", but then what will you do when it's time to translate a microwave oven's user's manual into your conlang? Shall we simply forego all technology and literature because it's too complicated (and therefore bad) according to the philosophical mission statement of your language? At that point you might as well go with the one-word language that was jokingly proposed in the Esperanto-language section of the forums about six months ago (I think it was "gne" or something silly like that). Or no, that's still too hard, so we'll just go with a zero-word language since we all talk too much anyway.

What annoys me most though is that Puna is obviously just a poor man's Toki Pona. At least Toki Pona is original, creative and fun to play around with in its own way, though I don't think it could ever be a serious international auxiliary language (nor do I think it was intended as such, really). Puna on the other hand is just a pointless rip-off.