Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>>It occurs to me right know that it would imply the existence of
words like
>>>_tash_ [tah], which I'd have every excuse to pluralize as _tans_ [tans].
>>
>>So make it *tass@! IMO it can be plural _tans_ anyway!
>>'Tis called analogy, y'know! :)
>
>
> Nah, I prefer _tash_->_tans_ and _tas_->_tasan_ (where the -s of _tas_ is from
> *ss).
OK I misunderstood you.
>
> (There can still be individual exceptions, of course; as mentioned in an earlier
> mail, _guthu_->_gunt_, not ->**_guthun_ as expected.)
Yeah. Exceptions is good in a naturalistic language.
Too bad I'm so bad at coming up with them...
>
> (Incidentally, I think my 'rl' is simply [l`] - it doesn't seem any less
> approximanty than plain 'l' to me.)
That would be the normal thing. The original source of /l\`/ is
Old Swedish /rD/, e.g. [ju:l\`] "earth". Many dialects later
merged /l/ with /l\`/, e.g. Värmländska.
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)