Re: At last, an 'official' (but far from complete) page on Tech

Hi!

Danny Wier <dawiertx@...> writes:
> I have posted the introduction and phonology to Tech at my long-neglected
> GeoCities free homepage:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dawier/tech.htm
>
> I used Outlook Express as an HTML editor, believe it or not. So it's not
> pretty. But I have something online now, especailly for Henrik, who
> specifically asked about Tech. (I've posted a lot online about it, but I've
> changed things so much. Fortunately, I'm past that and working on grammar,
> vocabulary and syntax now.)
>...
Oh, thanks!

The feature list is quite funny. :-) I don't agree that advanced
culture => complex grammar, but ok.  I like texts about conlangs
containing sentences like 'A possible link to the hypothetical
Nostratic superfamily has been suggested.' :-)))

Are the alveolar and retroflex rhotics trills or approximants?

I also found two possible bugs:
  - is a p' (bilabial ejectiv) really missing?
  - If it is X-Sampa, should \gamma \gamma not really be [G\R]
    ([G] is a velar fricative, [G\] is a uvular plosive)
    Or is it IPA and these are supposed to be smallcaps?
  - a with ring above is probably [o], right?

Can you pronounce that language fluently? :-)

I'm looking forward to grammar.  Due to the totally different
phonology compared to Inuit-Aleut, it will be interesting to compare
how Tech builds up long words polysynthetically.  Kalaallisut has
complex things going on when morphemes combine, but Tech with probably
work totally different.

**Henrik

Reply