Rhodese articles (Was: Terkunan: help with decision)

Hi!

Benct Philip Jonsson writes:
>         masc. sing.     fem. sing.      plur.
>         _#C     _#V     _#C     _#V     _#C     _#V
> ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
> def.    el      el      la      l'      li      gl'
> indef.  un      un      na      n'      eun     eun
>
> OR
>
>         masc. sing.     fem. sing.      plur.
>         _#C     _#V     _#C     _#V     _#C     _#V
> ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
> def.    el      el      la      l'      li      gl'
> indef.  un      un      na      n'      ni      gn'
>
> Is the latter preferable or am I over-regularizing?
My gut feeling for Rhodese is that the first alternative is more like
it.  It has that nice vowel change.  And the system should not be made
too regular I think.

Note that my answer disregards any aspect but aesthetics, because I
basically have no idea how the modern words are derived exactly and
why you would think you're overgeneralising in the second alternative.

Note that I really miss the _u_ in some of the indefinite articles.
For me, _u_ is the essence of that article, not _n_, but of course,
that's pure aesthetics again. :-) Maybe that's why I like _eun_ more
than _ni_.  (Terkunan has _nus_ with an _u_...)

**Henrik