En réponse à Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>:
>
> Indeed, it is perfectly regular, and their aren't that many deviations
> from my
> "Latin violation scheme". Maggelity? Strange, AFAICT it would be quite
> easy to
> pronounce for a Pole.
Which to an untrained French would be a good definition of "strange"
indeed ;)))) . Luckily I'm not untrained ;))))) .
I can pronounce them myself, without much trouble;
> a real
> Venedian would probably think that I am a Venedian from abroad :))
>
A speaker of Maggel would consider me a madman or a god probably (only those
two categories can pronounce Maggel without being part of their nation ;))) ).
> BTW The word "Maggelity" really ought to be lexicalized. Why don't you
> submit
> it to Oxford, Webster etc.?
>
What are their criteria to accept new words? If they accept technical "slang",
I may have a chance. If they wait until those words are of common use in more
than a small community, it may be different ;)) . But I like the idea.
> Your fame will be eternal.
> Cia gl/orza jery jetrzna. (l/ = Polish l with stroke)
> [ts_jA gwoZa jErI jEtSnA]
>
I can pronounce it too, although stumbling ;))) .
>
> Okay, you asked for it!
>
Sounds like a threat ;))) .
> 1 uden/una/unu [udEn], [unA], [unu]
Am I right to say that |uden| comes from Slavic? In which case is it used
rather than the Romance forms?
> 2 dwo [dwO]
> 3 trze [tSE]
Funny, the orthography keeps a connection with the Latin origin of the word
which has disappeared in speech. It does often the same in French :))) .
> 4 kwaczór [kvAtSur]
> 5 czyn'cz [tSIn_jtS]
> 6 siecz [s_jEtS]
> 7 siedem [s_jEdEm]
> 8 os'ciem [Os_jts_jEm]
Do you manage to pronounce palatalised consonants in front of another
consonant? That's next to impossible to me :((( . But I manage final
palatalised ones :)) .
> 9 nów [nuf]
> 10 dziecz [dz_jEtS]
> 11 udzieczy [udz_jEtSI] or [udz_jEtS@]
> 12 dwodzieczy [dwOdz_jEtSI] (sim.)
> 13 trzedzieczy [tSEdz_jEtSI]
> ...
> 18 os'ciemdzieczy [Os_jts_jEmdz_jEtSI]
> 19 nowdzieczy [nOvdz_jEtSI]
> 20 wigic' [vigits_j]
> 30 trzygic' [tSIgits_j]
> 40 kwadraz^yc' [kwAdrAZIts_j]
> 50 czyn'z^yc' [tSIn_jZIts_j]
> 60 sieszaz^yc' [s_jESaZIts_j]
> 70 siedmaz^yc' [s_jEdmaZIts_j]
> 80 os'ciemz^yc' [Os_jts_EmZIts_j]
> 90 nonaz^yc' [nOnaZIts_j]
> 100 czat [tSAt]
>
Is |czat| also a borrowing from Slavic langs? Or is is regularly derived from
CENTUM?
> The higher numbers and the ordinals I'll omit here. This should be
> sufficient
> to give an impression.
>
A good impression indeed! Nice work!
Christophe.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.