Nik writes:
>>>>>>
Paul Bennett wrote:
> Approximate IPA
> Stops Nasals Fricat Affric Approxmants
> p b m f w
> T t[T
> t d n s ts r
> S tS l j
> k g N x
>
> Actual Romanisation
> p b m ph w
> th dth
> t d n s z r
> sh ch l gh
> c g gn h
Some questions: why {ph} and not {f} for /f/? And why not {tth} for
/tT/? Interesting romanizations, like {gn} for /N/? Is it because {ng=
}
is a legal cluster? Why not {k} for /k/ and {c} for /tS/, and {gh} for=
/j/ is really odd.
<<<<<<
Just because I don't beleive every lang would be romanised by "careful"=
modern
linguists. This has more of a feel (to me) of being chucked together 1=
50 years
ago somewhere in Europe (France? Italy?) by an absent-minded Classicist=
, which
is exactly the feeling I was going for.
>>>>>>
> Orthog English M-uagh=E1 IPA
> au daunt d=E1unt turned-c
> i disk disc smallcap-i
> ie deep d=EDep i
> iu wood wiud turned-smallcap-omega
> o dot dot turned-script-a
> oa don't d=F3ant schwa turned-smallcap-omega
> oi boy boi turned-c smallcap-i
> ou north nouth turned-c schwa
> u dug dug wedge
> ua ago uag=F3a schwa
> uo doom d=FAom u
Interesting representations.
<<<<<<
Erm, yeah. Not sure about many of them. Especially "north" for <ou>. =
See my
comments above about an absent minded 19th C classicist.
>>>>>>
> An apostrophe is used in romanisations to disambiguate words that
> would otherwise be homographs. The native alphabet distinguishes eac=
h
> phone with its own glyph.
I don't understand this.
<<<<<<
For example, the word <apha> is distinct from <ap'ha> in romanisation. =
The
script has seperate glyphs for <ph> and the letters <p> and <h>.
>>>>>>
> The grammar is a mixed ergative-absolute / dechticaetative system.
What the heck is "dechticaetative"?
<<<<<<
A system that distinguishes Primary from Secondary Objects, rather than=
Direct
from Indirect Objects. The opposite of "dechticaetative" (according to=
Trask)
is "dative". I've tried to maintain more familiar terminology througho=
ut the
rest of the post to make it easier to read.
>>>>>>
> Transitive Verb
> Subject - Ergative
> Verb - Inflected for Subject
> Object - Absolute
>
> Ditransitive Verb
> Subject - Volitive
> Indirect Object - Ergative
> Verb - Inflected for Indirect Object
> Direct Object - Absolute
Hmm, same case for agent of a transitive sentence AND dative? Very
strange.
<<<<<<
In "the man fills the bucket with water", they see "the water" as perfo=
rming the
action of "filling the bucket", under the control of "the man". This i=
s one
essence of the word dechticaetative.
>>>>>>
> Component Gen. -eich (x y-eich =3D x is part of y) /* should this be =
<y-eich x>
> ?*/
> Habitual Gen. -uagh=E1 (associated with (see above))
> Possessive. -eshau (owned by (see above))
Interesting. I'd use something like "component", "associative", and
"possessive".
<<<<<<
Okeydokey. Unless anyone else disagrees?
>>>>>>
> Plurals are marked by umlaut.
Cool.
<<<<<<
I think the actual term may be ablaut, now I come to re-read it. Basic=
ally, one
of more vowels in a noun changes to a similar vowel to mark the plural.=
>>>>>>
> Imperative replace inflection with <-z>
> Jussive insert <-zoa-> before the inflection
> Past Insert <-gniu-> before the inflection
> Progressive Insert <-dtha-> before the inflection
> Passive Insert <-cei-> before the inflection
In this order?
<<<<<<
Yes, a hypothetical verb could be dada-zoa-gniu-dtha-cei-z (rather than=
any
other ordering), although the Jussive and the Past kinda contradict eac=
hother.
Maybe the Jussive is the Optative. I need more markers in this functio=
n.
=
*************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender. This footnote also confirms that this email message
has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
*************************************************************