Re: Lenmoct

> Hi all.
>
> This is my first mention of my newest language (sketch),
> Lenmoct. The name is pronounced ['lEm:VC] and means
> mother-goddess. My goal was to create a reverse-sexist
> conlang with an interesting- looking orthography.
<clip interesting stuff>

I'm a big orthography nut.
Tell us more about your orthography, Jake.  What's the methodology
behind it?  Is't more or less random, or do you have a methodology
behind all your exotic multigraphy?

Also, for the assigning-gender thing:
This is really weird to me; I would have expected morphology to switch
word genders, rather than just assigning weird operators... in fact, you
can do this (a little bit) in Seinundj'e, which has an accusative
inverse system requiring higher-animacy arguments to take subject
position.  There's a pragmatic animacy hierarchy that can be partly
overridden by a morphological gender hierarchy:

Pragmatic hierarchy:
Pronouns > Gendered Nouns > Human nouns > Animals > Everything else

Gender Hierarchy:
Person > Animate Ephemera > Predators, Birds > Meat Animals, Insects >
Plants, Devices > Substances, Inanimate Ephemera.

So, I can say "the man cuts down the tree" in a couple of ways:

Dhaana   taalen    siimma.
Dhaanace taalen    siimma.
Dhaanace taalthaen siimma.
Raa      taalen    siimma.
Raa      taalthaen siimma.
Raa      ruen      siimma.

But if I gender-mark or pronounify only the tree, I'm forced to reorder
my arguments and use inverse marking:

Taaltha dhaanaen   siimara.
Ruu     dhaanaen   siimara.
Ruu     dhaanaceen siimara.

It turns out that in this example I couldn't reorder my arguments by
using an Ephemera gender marker, but I could if it were an animal:

Taalle  laayikalen kaamara.
"The blackbird sees the tree(spirit)."

---
Shreyas