Irina writes:
>>>>>>
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Paul Bennett wrote:
> The mein=E1n describe the s[aghwaad<zi (<thagojians>) as "grunting an=
d
> growling like animals", due to the size and nature of the s[aghwaad<z=
i
> consonontal phonology.
>
> Meanwhile, the s[aghwaad<zi describe the mein=E1nuagh=E1 as "mewling =
like
> infants", due to the size and richness of the mein=E1nuagh=E1 vowel
> phonology.
I like that!
<<<<<<
So do I. It came to me completely accidentally, out of the blue, and I=
kept it.
>>>>>>
> Set tabs at 8 and use a fixed font to read properly
I did that, but it didn't help any; something converted your tabs to
spaces. It's probably wise to use spaces anyway, so it will always
come out OK as long as people use a fixed font.
> 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
See what I mean?
<<<<<<
Humph! It's time to flex some postmaster muscle and beat the living wos=
sname out
of our mail server...
>>>>>>
> au daunt d=E1unt turned-c
Why do you romanize it like that, and not with something more like
"o"? Do they perceive it as a-like themselves?
<<<<<<
More spur-of-the-moment stuff. After several peoples various comments =
about my
romanisation, I may redo some of it.
>>>>>>
> Vowel (or first vowel) is acuted (<'> in ascii) to show length.
So if the first vowel of a digraph is accented the whole thing is
long?
<<<<<<
Yes
>>>>>>
> The Native order can be found by reading the table above in row-by-ro=
w
> order, with vowels interleaved as follows: (each of the following are=
> considered as single letters)
> p a b ua m ae ph uo w o th iu dth oa t d au n s oi z u r ai i sh ch i=
e
> l gh e c ei g gn ao h
It looks as if the vowels are in between in order to pronounce the
sequence as a sentence - not say each letter's name, but say
something like "pabua maephuo wothiu ..." when reciting the letters.
Is it like that?
<<<<<<
Yes.
>>>>>>
> 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.
How do you indicate long vowels then, or do short and long vowels
have their own glyphs as well?
<<<<<<
Oops. I hadn't thought of that. I'll think about it, though a long vo=
wel is
likely to be diacritised.
>>>>>>
> The grammar is a mixed ergative-absolute / dechticaetative system.
I've never heard of "dechticaetative".
<<<<<<
Neither had I until I bought Trasks dictionary at the London conlangcon=
. It was
one of the terms we picked at random from the book and briefly discusse=
d.
Indeed, those who attended the conlangcon may see many of my inspiratio=
ns for
this lang in things that were talked about there. It means "distinguis=
hing
Primary from Secondary Objects rather than Direct from Indirect Objects=
". For
clarity, I've stuck to the terms Direct and Indirect in the rest of the=
post, to
make it easier on the reader.
>>>>>>
> The system distiguishes the following cases (this also shows the usua=
l
> word order): /* It's an horrendous abuse of the term "volitive", any
> better suggestions? */
What about "agentive"?
<<<<<<
Sounds good.
>>>>>>
> >Intransitive Verb
> Verb - Inflected for Subject
> Subject - Absolute
>
> >Passive (Di)Transitive Verb with Exophoric Subject (and Ind Obj)
> Verb - Inflected with <-h>
> Object - Absolute
What's an exophoric subject? Something like "the teacher" in "the
boys were given homework by the teacher"? (where "the boys" is
obviously the indirect object and "homework" the direct object)
<<<<<<
Exophoric is another term from Trask, and IIRC another one we kicked ar=
ound at
the conlangcon. It means a reference outside the current sentance. In=
"He gave
Jim the ball", "he" is an exophoric reference to a particular person.
>>>>>>
> The above cases are marked by unbound prefixes, shown as below:
>
> Def Indef
> Abs. oa 0
> Erg. an an
> Vol. eiz eim
If it's a prefix, how is it unbound? If it's a separate word, why not
call it an article (as indeed you do below)?
<<<<<<
A good point, and accepted. Consider it done.
>>>>>>
> Component Gen. -eich (x y-eich =3D x is part of y) /* should this be =
<y-eich x>
> ?*/
I should think you know your language better than I do :-)
There's no generalized "should", I think.
<<<<<<
I was talking about "linguistic universals", about which I have little =
more than
an intuitive grasp.
>>>>>>
> Eiz teim an l=FAocuaneighic ph=E1enuor oa lign=F3as s=
eiheich.
> VOL us-EXC ERG here.illative.RES want.g4 ABS language you.COM=
P
> (Latest attempt at "your language goes here")
Well, write it in its own script and send a gif to Fabian! :-)
<<<<<<
:-) I did post it, but I don't want any of this lang "set in stone" (or=
even in
fabric) just yet, besides which, the script is just about nonexistent a=
s yet :-)
It's going to look like Iberian, Phoenecian and some (semi/pre)linguist=
ic
(meso/neo)lithic European pottery marks.
=
*************************************************************
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.
*************************************************************