R: Re: Ke'kh

Dirk wrote:

> The categorization of 'incidental', 'deliberative', and
> 'consequential' reminds me of the Salish feature of 'control', which
> encodes precisely the same kind of information. I've usually seen it
> as a basic two-way distinction, but there are reports of more finely
> articulated "control-space". Very nice! I also am a big fan of non-
> concatenative morphology a la Arabic/Hebrew, etc.
What's a non-concatenative grammar? One which does not rely exclusively on
pre/suffixes but changes the root itself (or, à la Sémitique, the vowels in
the root)?

> A question about the transliteration. Do you also have voiced stops?
> If not, perhaps the transcription system could use those symbols for
> the plain voiceless stops; that way you could use the voiceless stop
> symbols for aspirates. Thus the Incidental Progressive <k3Ki'kh>
> becomes <g3ki'kh>. Or not. I've always felt it to be somehow inelegant
> to have to rely on capitalization for phonetic quality distinctions,
> but that's my personal preference.
And I agree with you. Capitalized letters remind me of one of the ugliest
Conlangs I've ever seen, Klingon.

Luca