Re: Introduction and Þēwthàj Phonology

Hi!

Kevin Athey <kevindeanathey@...> writes:
> > > Before most codas, they are central.  However, the combination /iw/
> > > is pronounced [u:], /iy/ is [i:], /ew/ is [EU],
> >
> >But you transliterated the name of the language (alternatively) with
> >|o| in |Tho1taq4|.  Why is that, then?
>
> The secondary romanization was designed to represent a more intuitively
> obvious pronunciation.  The |o| in this represents /ew/, just as |th| in
> this represents /þ/.
>....
> That would be [TOUt_haX], by the way.  With a tonal contour of [55.42].
But you wrote that /ew/ is [EU], not [o] or [OU].  (Though, of course,
that would be perfectly feasible, too).

> >Please post some grammar soon!  E.g., I'm keen on seeing those few
> >inflections.
>
> OK.  I'll try and keep this short.
>...
Interesting stuff! :-)

>...
> Normally, the roles of any other noun phrases are simply implied, but it is
> possible to specify the roll of any non-topic noun by using a "proverbal"
> with the appropriate prefix after the noun in question.
>...
Ah, that's a nice feature -- optional role marking for non-topics.  Nice!

>   Most "adjectives" are actually genitives or essives.  Colors, for example,
> are essives of nouns meaning a thing of that color.
Hmhm, that's basically how Qthyn|gai works, too.  It does not have a
clear verb/noun distinction, though, but valence infixes decide this
in the clause (I don't usually call them verbs/nouns, though, although
it's tempting).

**Henrik

Reply