Aidan Grey wrote:
> Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a
> lot of things that Tolkien hadn't finished (or that we
> don't have access to - How do you say "tiger" in Cein,
> for example?), so you will be creating some vocab. You
> just have a leg up on the start of it!
Hehe. There are no tigers in Cuif/Ammar. However, there
are lions, which are called _rha_ pl. _ra_. (_Raa_ in Q.)
I see your point tho. :)
> I'd suggest just using the nasal mutation with a
> couple of prepositions and maybe a single possessive
> pronoun. Otherwise you end up speaking out your nose.
> Se 'in' before a plural noun, for example (<Q -ssen).
> se nghen 'in elves'
Yes. The preposition 'by' _nen_ is all I got so far.
Q. _-ssen_ is the plural form, but I suppose I could
use that one. That'll give me another nasal mutation
preposition. Good idea. So 'in' is now _sen_.
> > cen [tSEn] 'elf'
> > i nghen [I N_0En] 'the elf' (with def.art. _in_)
> > i gen [I gEn] 'the elf' (with def.art. _i_)
> > chen [xEn] 'elves'
> > ir chen [Ir xEn] 'the elves'
> >
> > Two questions: (1) If I go with _in_, how would
> > {ngh} be pronounced before [e] and [i]? {c} is [tS], so
> > the nasal would be the equivalent. The closest I come
> > is some sort of palatal nasal.
> That was my immediate thought /i njEn/. But,
> analogy's evil hand may be revealed here too, and
> everything pronounced the same, regardless of
> palatization...
Possibly, but I like the [nj] pronunciation. No
analogy there.
> Actually, this was a question for me.
> Wouldn't you get the following pronunciations on your
> examples above? :
>
> cen /tSEn/
> i nghen /i njEn/
Yes. The [N_0] was just if analogy had come into play.
> i gen /i dZEn/
Of course. It seems my mind can't handle all these rules
about pronunciation, plus mutations at the same time. :(
> chen /SEn/ or /Cen/ with /C/ being Ich-laut, like
> Quenya hyarma
Analogy! :) I had [C] at first, but then decided to have
[x] for all contexts. I might change that back.
> ir chen /ir SEn/ or /CEn/
See above. Wouldn't the [r] disappear except before
vowels, making it /i xen/ or /i Cen/?
> > (2) How do I explain the spirant mutation of indef.
> > plural?
> > And do I need to explain why c -> ch becomes [x]
> > even though it is an [E] afterwards and the original
> > {c} is [tS]?
> Analogy. (it is the solution to every problem!) or
> that the ch- after the article became standardized,
> like the nasal mutation above, where the trigger
> environment has been lost. Then when the article
> wasn't needed, it was assumed that the spirant needed
> to be there because it showed the plural.
Yes, that's what I though too. Thank god for analogy. :)
> Good luck with the new job! I look forward to seeing
> more Cein!
Thanks! And you will see more of Cein, don't you worry. :)
||| daniel
--
<> Mad llamgalf! <> daniel.andreasson@telia.com <>
<> Ond llam! <> www.geocities.com/conlangus <>