Re: Egyptian based Conlangs
| From: | Tom Wier <artabanos@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, December 16, 1998, 5:27 |
|---|
Sheets, Jeff wrote:
> > I have the Egyptian Language book. IMHO, It is more for the hierogly=
phic
> > angle of the language, and is little use for any deep understanding o=
f
> > it. I have used the book for a few words for my vocabulary in Kesa, =
but
> > have not used Egyptian to any great length.
> >
> This is true, it begins with the hieroglyphic writing system, and compl=
etely
> lacks any real detail about verbs. Judging by the Interlinear text,
> Egyptian was probably as close to Isolation as English is now.
Well, that's just during one phase of Ancient Egyptian. There are many,
and apparently the language cycled through the types several times in the
3500 years or so of vigorous use - from isolating, to agglutinating, to
inflecting, and back again.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <twier@...>
ICQ#: 4315704 AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
"S=F4=F0 is gecy=FEed / =FE=E6t mihtig God manna
cynes / w=EAold w=EEde-ferh=F0."
_Beowulf_, ll. 700-702
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D