Re: Ebisedian tutorial

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:32:34AM +0100, bnathyuw wrote:
>  --- "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...> wrote: > Hi
[snip]
> > Comments? suggestions? flames? fan-mail? ;-)
> >
>
> well, i like it. a lot. and it's great to see the
> transcription in the proper fonts ! makes a HUGE
> difference . . . ! ( and looks rather pretty )
Yes, it does indeed. The ASCII transcription is very ugly, even to me. :-P

> as to the noun cases, they make perfect sense to me.
> as i haven't studied your verbs yet i'm going to have
> to guess on this, but would i be right in thinking
> they wouodn't be marked for person. or is this pure
> presumption ?
You're quite right. Verbs aren't marked for person. In fact, Ebisedian
verbs are probably rather different from what you'd think of as a verb. It
describes events rather than state. For state, you'd use a gerund/
participle instead. Anyway, I won't spoil it here. You'll just have to
wait till I get to verbs in the tutorial. ;-)

> just a couple of comments : is ommission of breathings
> standard, or did they all have the abrupt ? i couldn't
> work it out with `yma1' / yma1'.
Oops. It's my mistake. They are all supposed to have smooth breathings.

> also i find the
> smooth confusing, but that's cuz i'm used to greek
> where it goes the other way round . . . !
True, true. But I thought it was more aesthetically pleasing this way. ;-)

> finally, you have a rogue 1 in the english word t1me
> in the discussion of the locative, but now i'm just
> picking nits !
[snip]

Well, please do. :-)  I hate spelling mistakes and typos, esp. in my own
writing. And yes, this is another mistake on my part... thanks for
pointing it out. :-)


T

--
Why do conspiracy theories always come from the same people??

Reply