Re: more English orthography

From: "Muke Tever" <alrivera@...>

> From:    "Daniel A. Wier" <dawier@...>
>> The other consonants are h, which result in low tone (the three
laryngeals
>> h1 h2 h3 are preserved; I'm not sure how each one is to be realized),
s
>> (results in high tone), r, l, v (= w or v), and j (last four result
in low
>> tone).
>I don't understand H1 H2 H3 either.  One website gives them as /h/,
/x/, and
>/xw/, respectively.  But MHO they might be "farther back" than that.  I
>don't understand either H by itself on Gwinn's site.
I think Aharon Dolgopolsky (or was it Thomas Gamqrelidze?) had /h/,
palatized /h/ and labiovelar /h/ -- but he posited SIX laryngeals, with
/x/ (achlaut), /c,/ (c-cedilla/ichlaut) and /xw/.  Don't ask me how he
came up with that.  I think he related them to some sort of 'smooth' h
and 'rough' h in Hittite and Anatolian in general.

>> Gramatically, the language is a bit simpler; it behaves much more
like an
>> agglutinative language than an inflected one.  There are as many as
ten
>> cases (at least seven or eight anyway) but only one declension (like
>> Finnish); verb grammar might be a little tricky, but who knows...
>So where'd the extra cases come from, and where's the other declensions
>gone? :)
If you mean different declension schemas depending on gender or root
ending vowel, they've gone to Dallas after a load of goats.  There is no
gender in Frogman, and no matter what the noun root ends in, the case
ending is always the same.  Plus, since some postpositions got to be
considered IE cases, why not others?  There could be literally dozens of
'cases' -- but cases like in languages like Turkish, and that without
the vowel harmony.  In fact, the genitive plural is: noun root + plural
marker + genitive suffix.  Just like Turkish and Esperanto.

Haven't decided on whether or not to make it nominative-accusative or
ergative-absolutive, but I'm leaning toward the former.

DaW.