As continuation from http://lesswrong.com/lw/mij/welcome_to_less_wrong_8th_thread_july_2015/cxaz

a-priori conlang

Yes, just like Loglan/Lojban is a-priori. Apart from simply having more freedom is language design I think the Chinese are more likely to adopt a culturally neutral conlang than one based on European roots like Esperanto.

in which the meaning of any word could be determined from its spelling, because the spelling is sufficient to give the word exact coordinates on a concept graph of some sort.

Not exactly. I decided to copy the Toaq Alpha syllable structure "[C|CC](w|y)[V|VV ](q)" and expended it to "[C|CC](w|y)[V|VV](q/ß)".

I think that roughly all the CV, CCV, CVV space for possible base words should be filled. Afterwards you should be able to add (w|y) in the middle of syllable and (q/ß) at the end to go from caiq [parent] to caiß [boss].

I also have two changes between ce [1] and di [2]. If you simply mishear one phoneme you don't hear 1 instead of 2 but hear a completely different word that doesn't fit into the slot where you would expect a number. That reduces misunderstandings that would appear if I would say ce = [1] and ci = [2].

If you look at Lojban's numbers you see a similar way to use vowels but the consonants are all over the place: 0=no; 1=pa; 2=re; 3=ci; 4=vo; 5=mu; 6=xa; 7=ze; 8=bi; 9=so It would also make more sense if 0 would be 'nu' rather than 'no'.

The biggest problem that any conlang faces is getting people to use it, and anything that makes that more difficult, such as requiring changes to the standard American keyboard, needs to be avoided unless it's absolutely necessary.

I think it's okay to require a change to the US international keyboard and stay within AscII. Having more signs allows for shorter words