Re: Revised Verb paradigm!
|From:||Yoon Ha Lee <yl112@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, October 31, 2001, 3:09|
On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 01:53 , Padraic Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Yoon Ha Lee wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 28, 2001, at 11:38 , Padraic Brown wrote:
>> langs) but your paradigms are quite lovely; this is one conlang I'd
>> definitely like to hear spoken.
> If I can get the accent down, I might try recording it.
>Let us know if/when you do! :-)
>>> ii. Past simp. (perf.)
>>> parlasi parlason
>>> parlaste parlasaz iiA. Past
>>> parlasot pharlasont
>> I noticed in a number of places <p> varied to <ph>. What sound is <ph>
>> and what instigates the variance (mostly, it seems, in the 3rd person
>> plural)? (I apologize, I realize I've missed a lot of your earlier posts
>> on Kerno.)
> It's [f]. This is aspiration, a typical British mutation. 3rd singular
> used to have a feminine form, called softening: barlasot, e.g. Not
> frequently heard anymore; though still quite alive in Brithenig.
> Aspiration also happens in plural nouns: il cats / y chat /Il kat(s)/ -
> /i xat/. The third mutation is nasalisation, which you get (usually)
> after prepositions and articles that end in -n and also in the oblique
> case: il cats / le gatte /Il kat(s)/ - /lE~ gat/.
Oh, I see! :-) This makes a lot more sense when you explain, and when
others on this list have explained it, than when I tried to look it up in
a book on Irish. <wry g> OC I didn't know any phonetics/phonology at the
time, which might've been part of the problem. Thanks for the
Yoon Ha Lee [firstname.lastname@example.org]
A clear conscience is merely the result of a bad memory.