Re: Is it necessary to distinguish inclusiveness in possessive markers?

Andreas Johansson wrote:

> |r| for [x] is kinda neat ...
>
> |ä| for [9], OTOH, is atrocious! Any reason not to use instead |ö|?
Well ö is [O]. The wovel system is rather logic.

a [a]   ä [9]
e [e]   ë [E]
i [i]
o [o]   ö [O]
u [u]   ü [y]

[9] is closer to [a] than [o] IMHO. I also speak German but it's not a
problem; Shaquelingua definitively doesn't resemble german except for "ü"
[y]. Maybe should I use "ï" instead?

Back to atrocities: what do you think of "y" pronounced [w]?  ;-)

In Shaquelingua's roman script, "y" stand for [H] (labial-palatal semivowel)
i.e. [y] as a semivowel. But it's pronounced [w] around [o] and [O] for the
sake of simplicity. So:

ya [Ha]         yä [H9]
ye [He]         yë [HE]
yi [Hi]

but:

yo [wo]         yö [wO]

Of course, "j" stands for [j]. I tried to stay as close as possible to IPA.

The last hidden atrocities of Shaquelingua are the unpronoucable "x" [x\]
(simultaneous [S] and [x]) and the mute vowel "h" which is pronounced [:],
[?], [_h] or [.] depending on its position. A very funny vowel, isn't it? ;-)

>>He said he will come tomorrow.
teth'tajh xeje-to-floya'tulh.
[tet_h^taj: x\eje:^to^f4owa^tu4:]

(indicative-past-real)'he self-future-coming'(immaterial object expressed)

= He expressed his (self) future coming.

vs.

teth'gatajh çiteje-to-floya'tulh.
[tet_h^gataj: Citeje:^to^f4owa^tu4:]

(indicative-past-real)'(close he) (distant his)-future-coming'(immaterial
object expressed)

= This one expressed the future coming of that one.

I used the possibility of Shaquelingua to "conjugate" names, so I needn't
the word "tomorrow" which I couldn't remember right now.  ;-)

See ya,

=====================
Remi Villatel
maxilys@normandnet.fr
=====================

Reply