TECH: Testing again, no new on-topic content (was Re: "Language Creation" in your conlang)

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:11:38 -0500, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>
wrote:

> din's'i"n de'maphsep /diNS1n dEmAfsep/
> FWIW, in UTF-8 it's dińśïn démaphsep /diŋʃɨn dɛmɑfsep/
> For script, if you like, you can use a mix of Greek, Coptic and Hebrew:
>
> delta iota ayin shai upsilon nu - delta eta mu alpha phi lunate-sigma
> epsilon pi
>
> Thus: ΔΙעϢΥΝ ΔΗΜΑΦCΕ�
>
> Preferably in a Coptic or other similar-ish uncial font or in masonry-
> carved romano-greek all-capitals. You can happily substitute Cyrillic sha
> Ш
> for Coptic shai Ϣ if your favourite font lacks the latter.
This concludes the test. If this had been an actual posting, you would have
been alerted to new Thagojian developments.

Actually, no. Hell with it. ObNew Content...

I have been reading the descriptions of Mattole and Burushaski, as well as
some half-remembered stuff on Eskimo-Aleut languages, and I've been cooking
up one hell of a non-English, non-PIE, quite alien (to me) language.

The first notable point is that it has 26 different Person/Gender
inflections for verbs, some of which depend on the gender of both the
speaker and the listener. It has 53 consonants and 15 vowels. Roots are all
CV monosyllabic. It is agglutinative, and does so via suffixes and
suprafixes, and has ablaut as a result, as well as vowel harmony.





Paul

Replies