Paul Bennett wrote:
> 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 150 years
> ago somewhere in Europe (France? Italy?) by an absent-minded Classicist, which
> is exactly the feeling I was going for.
Cool.
> 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>.
Ah, so <ap'ha> is /apha/ while <apha> is /afa/? Is this done
consistently? I.e., if <apha> isn't a word, would /apha/ still be
written <ap'ha>?
> A system that distinguishes Primary from Secondary Objects, rather than Direct
> from Indirect Objects.
And what are Primary and Secondary Objects?
> In "the man fills the bucket with water", they see "the water" as performing the
> action of "filling the bucket", under the control of "the man". This is one
> essence of the word dechticaetative.
Interesting.
--
"Cats are rather delicate creatures and they are subject to a good many
ailments, but I never heard of one who suffered from insomnia." --
Joseph Wood Krutch
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ #: 18656696
AIM screen-name: NikTailor