Re: Latin grammar
| From: | Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, September 3, 2002, 9:55 |
|---|
Jan wrote:
>
>Interesting. I never knew Rubaga was a Romance language. Did you ever post
>something about its grammar? Or do you have a link of some kind?
>
>All I remember of it, is that it has nine different ways of pronouncing
>/g/,
>providing the language with a fair degree of Maggelity. Quite an
>achievement, I
>admit.
>
>Wenedyk, on the other hand, has a very low degree of Maggelity, and so do
>my
>other languages. I usually tend to create an orthography that fits
>pronunciation (or the other way 'round, perhaps). Slavic influence, I
>guess...
>
My conlangs also tend to have very reg'lar orthographies. Steianzh has,
however, quite unintentionally evolved a number of spelling weirdities,
particularly a consistent inconsistency in how close the spelling is to
pronounciation. Eg, almost all of the assimilated and reduced variants of
the copula are recognized in spelling, but the very heavy and quite regular
reductions of noun endings are not - f'rinstance _zedelener_ "girls
(dative)" is pronounced [zEdl=nr=].
Andreas
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Replies