Re: Introduction and sandhi scripting question.

    Hello!

Dirk Elzinga wrote:
> Hello, Edgard!
>
> On 7/4/06, Edgard Bikelis <bikelis@...> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm creating a conlang (now unexpected here!), called Ausónia Bhâmaa,
>> Ausonian, or 'golden speech', etymologically. Well, it is an
>> indo-european
>> conlang, with its morphology almost done, and syntax almost
>> completely to
>> do. For those wanting to take a look, here it is:
>>
>> http://ausonia.parnassum.org/grammar_0.3.9.3.pdf , or
>> http://www.parnassum.org/ausonia/grammar_0.3.9.3.pdf
>>
>> It is a jungle of errors, as English is not my native language, and
>> the text is not too up-to-date compared with my 'mental version'.
>> Anyway, there is too my conscript, that at least I myself like. Nice
>> comments are very welcome ; ). Note too that it is not intended to be
>> a scientific description, at least within our science. Ausónos was
>> quite excentric, mind you...
>
> I looked at the PDF, and I must say that I find the physical
> appearance of the description to be quite pleasing. You'll have to
> tell me how you did it.
    Thank you. I did it inspired by the first printed books,
'incunabula'; and, specially the last page with that kind of bell shape,
by Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. See this page:

http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/treasures/poliphili.html

    Adobe Jenson is the font I used, and it fits very well with the
whole of the page composition. Well, and that is it. The red details
improve the reading, so I think, and is much more pleasant to see than a
pure black page. The final version will surely be printed on a very
light brown/yellow, just because I like it ; ). I just remembered, if
you can find a proper italic, this font would look even better:

http://apostrophiclab.pedroreina.net/0189-DayRoman/dayroman.html

    Seeing this I realize that I was too economic with this ligatures...
>
> I also noticed that there seems to be a three-way "tug-of-war", if you
> will, in the style of the description. First, you seem to have in mind
> a "native" grammatical tradition from which you draw terms such as
> 'dubious sounds' (for glides) and 'rude' (for aspirated). Second, you
> use traditional/linguistic terms such as 'voiced/voiceless',
> occlusive, etc. Third, there are terms which I suspect you are
> translating directly from your native language (Portuguese?) which
> don't quite work in English, or words which are used incorrectly, such
> as 'semivowel' for the group of sounds /y w r l/ (the term
> 'approximant' would be better here, if a standard linguistic term is
> needed). The term 'semivowel' in my experience is reserved for the
> sounds you call 'dubious sounds'. Of course, it may be that the terms
> I've identified as belonging to a "native" grammatical tradition might
> well be literal translations from your native language.
    Yep, Portuguese, how did you guess? : ). You are right, I messed up.
"Dubious sound" is from my own concoction, rude versus soft is from
ancient Greek, the rest is from Portuguese, I think. I will redo
everything, and this is a very crucial point to work on! BTW, I can't
think about a good native nomenclature for voiced versus voiceless; I
will see what Pa.ni.ni tells about it, if anything... I suspect he calls
it precisely voiced and voiceless ; ).
>
> I'm afraid I can't help with the technical questions you pose, but we
> have a lot of knowledgeable people on the list who may be able to
> help.
>
> Dirk
>
Edgard scripsit.

Reply