Re: Draseliq is shortening

At 10:08 pm -0300 11/5/99, FFlores wrote:
>As someone said in an earlier post (and I
>agreed later), Drasel=E9q is long. I'm correcting
>some of the "long" features in the language now...
>Not because length is bad for languages, but
>because Drasel=E9q is supposed to be short -- it
>is phonetically just a bit restricting, a bit
>less restricting than English, I think; and its
>development has been one of shortening, assimilation
>and re-shortening, syncope, apocope, etc....
>
>The first change is the change of the 3s-past
>mark from the cumbersome -=FCaq to a more modest
>-aq. More common verbs made irregular and shorter.
>Adverbs that become unstressed conjunctions get
>mercilessly chopped...
>
>Just thought you should know.
Thanks!

Is this a change from Classical Drasel=E9q to
early Middle Drasel=E9q   :)

Good luck with it!

Ray.