Re: Terkunan > Trekunan?

Hi!

Benct Philip Jonsson writes:
> On 7.5.2008 Henrik Theiling wrote:
>
>>    aliqu'unum         rakun
>
> Why l > r here, where no cluster is involved?
Via *alkuno:

aliquu:num = alik'wu:num > alIk'u:nU > alkuno > arkuno > rakuno > rakUn

This would be one case where swapping syncope and metathesis would
change the result.

>> (Or 'Latin Brugal'? Would require l>r in more
>> contexts. Hmm...)
>
> Definitely! _Brugal_ sounds so vulgar... :-9
Yeah. :-)  But it requires some fine-tuning.  Last time I edited the
l<->r shifts, it took me a long time to be pleased with the result.
That's why I'm a bit reluctant to just edit the rules now.  But I'll
try.  IIRC, the main thing I did not like last time was 'rd' clusters,
but they will now be removed by the metathesis, so it's all different
now.  I fear too many Cr clusters this time...

I'm also thinking to allow final -m, so I get 'rutim' < ULTIMUM etc.
There are quite many words in -me now, and it seems to be that, say,
-v is much more likely to require a following schwa (now /e/) than -m.

>> Conlanging is fun. :-)
>
> The best thing with historical conlanging is that sometimes the
> rules come up with goodies you couldn't foresee or dream of!
Exactly. :-)

**Henrik