Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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?
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