Re: Indika and Nihilosc

Nikhil Sinha wrote:

>Hi Tristan,
>
>I liked your languages. Hope you have a website for them soon. Personally, I
>have a taste for conlangs whose vocabularies are based on exisitng languages
>because that way I can understand them. So, I like Føtisk, which is based on
>Germanic languages.
>
Hehehe :) Knowing me, my objective is to lead you into a false sence of
security so that you think you understand it, but in reality, you don't :)

>But I do like conlangs which are not based on existing languages. Hey, can
>you give some sample text in Føtisk.
>
Not really: as I said, it's only in its early stages of development so
there isn't really enough. I have a handful of words, like early Ancient
Føtisk _habede_ /hABe:D@/ 'had' (> late Ancient Føtisk
_ha[bdv]{ei,ee,e}[bdv]_ /hABe:B/ 'had' (because the Ancient Føtisk
orthography wasn't fixed, there were multiple spellings of many words,
which were generally spelt phonemically/etabnannically. So <habeib> and
<havev> were both valid spellings, among others) > Old Føtisk _haviv_
/hA:vIv/ or /hAv:Iv/ (depending on dialect) 'had' > Middle Føtisk ???? >
Modern Føtisk /@v/, marker of the perfect aspect/mood). That's a bit
complicated, sorry :)

>Did you visit my sites? Did you like them.
>
Not last night (it was getting late here).

>Here is how to say 'Føtisk is a Germanic language.' in Indika:
>Føtisk asas un Germanik linguao.
>Here is how you say the same thing in Nihilosc:
>Føtiskon agoas iso Germanikan raquaon.
>
If you want to know the modern pronunciation of 'Føtisk' so you can
borrow it based on pronunciation rather than spelling, I think it's
going to be something like /hwic/ (a bit like some pronunciations of
'which') (< /hwe:c/ < [fwe:c] < [f2:c] < /f2:t@C/ < [f2:tIsx] <
/f2:tIsk/ < *[Teutisx] < *[Teutisk]). (Yes, this is another etabnannic
ortography. Like I'd settle for anything less)

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

Reply