Re: Terkunan > Trekunan?
|From:||Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, May 7, 2008, 9:16|
Benct Philip Jonsson writes:
> On 7.5.2008 Henrik Theiling wrote:
>> aliqu'unum rakun
> Why l > r here, where no cluster is involved?
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!