Re: Introducing another project of mine

Elliott Lash sikayal:

> Translated:
> prdizhláctjut ctaj z prováje,
> kcut cto zirlúptic prdizhláctjak z brkašíntje
> vikmášut ctom kráçljom vzhudélom,
> kcut je vízhik glakhtíva  šízëglav.
> ctom zhuj cvurášom  kzhúštëjom,
> dju khvotjù brkašínti palçikáctjut
> bišút vikmódu šnje 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.

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.

> 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.

Otherwise, good job!

Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton

Reply