Re: Ok, here we go

CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU writes:
>- You present the plain style of Kuraw as Santul, but refer to it as
>wasantul.
>Now I saw that in Saalangal "wa-" is an optional abstract marker, but
>maybe you
>shouldn't put it at all when you refer to those words in an English text.
>Referring to the plain style as "Santul" looks better to me ;)) .
Oh yah, i know that, i even pointed the conflict out in my original email
:). Yeah, i prefer "Santul" better. But i do like "Wasantul" also. Buuut,
having the three: Wamangkay, Wasantul, and Wadali got to be a bit too
repetitive, so i made the affix optional :).
>
>- You've not explained *where* inside the root the infix -ng- appears.
Ahh yes, another part i needed to explain. There's actually a bit more to
it actually. Here we go:

-ng- infix appears between:

1. The initial vowel in vowel initial words, and the initial vowel is
repeated after it. Written with the Latin orthography a hyphen is included
to keep the root pronounced "whole":

a + -ng- + akan (art)= ang-akan - artst

2. After the first syllable in consonant initial words plus the root:

li + -ng- + ligas = linligas* - professional speaker

Hmmm actually this may not be an infix afterall. I might have to fix that.

* /ng/ will mutate depending upon the consonant it preceeds (actually all
nasals will). In front of dental consonants it will become /n/, velar it
stays /ng/, labial, it becomes /m/. This is reflected in the writing so
linligas appears "irregular".

Some of the style typos are due to Word being tricky with me (oddly it
wont let me keep certain sections at the top of a page, i think maybe
because i have each section with different headings due to an eventual
table of contents it will have (oh yeah, just a neat trick my friend
taught me in Word).

Reply