Re: Introducing another project of mine

In a message dated Mon, 2 Jul 2001 3:14:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jesse
stephen bangs <jaspax@...> writes:

<< Elliott Lash sikayal:

> Translated:
> prdizhláctjut ctaj z prováje,
> kcut cto zirlúptic prdizhláctjak z brka&#353;íntje
> vikmá&#353;ut ctom kráçljom vzhudélom,
> kcut je vízhik glakhtíva  &#353;ízëglav.
> ctom zhuj cvurá&#353;om  kzhú&#353;tëjom,
> dju khvotjù brka&#353;ínti palçikáctjut
> bi&#353;út vikmódu &#353;nje niçkóje gmargízhe
As a fan of Eastern European styled langs myself, I find this beautiful.
I just wish I could see it better--as you can tell, many of the letters
came out as gibberish.  I assume that they're s-carons, for now.

S-carons, right :)

Some thoughts:

> ç = /ts/
> kh = /X/
> ë = /@/
These three seem odd and un-Slavic to me. Perhaps instead of {ç} for /ts/, you
could use /ch/. That more usual, and comfortably bizarre from an English
perspective. I also don't like the e-trema (or e-umlaut, e-diaresis, whatever)
for schwa. I'm partial to the Romanian a-breve, but an e-breve might work as
well. The e-breve is used in some older Romanian
texts, so it's not without precedent.

Hmmm, since I'm only going to for a slightly slavic feel, I like these
representations...just because I use them for almost all of my languages.

> 1) before /r/ [I] > /i-/ (i-barred)
> example: "zirluptic" [zIrlUptItS] > /zi-rlUptItS/
Okay, this baffled me until I realized that you'd switched the phonetic
and phonemic markers.  You meant the opposite:  Before /r/ /I/ > [i-].
Or, in formal notation, /I/ > [i-] / __/r/.

The important thing: the /slashes/ are *phonemes*, the more abstract units. The
[brackets] are *phonetic* descriptions, the more literal transcription.


Utterly true, and it was only because it was around, 2:00 in the morning that this occured :)

Elliott