Re: Thagojian sample text
| From: | Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 8, 2003, 1:04 |
|---|
On 7 Oct 2003 at 19:41, Paul Bennett wrote:
> Qan'kédëmenet qaiwëtéphep dïhmónopëron, lhémën tétéras'eismeit.
>
> /?ANkEd@menet ?Ajw@tEvep d1hmOnop@r\on KEm@n tEtEr\AZejzmejt/
Of course, the {w} in {qaiwëtéphep} should be a {u}. Unless of
course, I can find some other way to mark palatalised consonants, and
become free to use {y}, {ÿ} and {w} for nonvocalic {i}, {ï} and {u}.
Would it be too much of a stretch to go in the direction of using
{k'}, {t'} and {p'} instead of {ky}, {ty} and {py}?
Also, it strikes me that a disproportionately large fraction of the
lexicon that I've been deriving has used "front" harmony (vowels {i e
é ï ë a}), as opposed to "back" harmony (vowels {u o ó ï ë a}). I was
hoping to make it about a 50-50 split, but it's turning out more like
70-30 or even 80-20. I'm dissatisfied with that.
Also also, I'm thinking about romanising {ï} and {ë} as {ü} and {ö}
when they occur in back-harmonising words.
Let's try that collection of ideas out...
Old (corrected):
Qan'kédëmenet qaiuëtéphep dïhmónopëron, lhémën tétéras'eismeit.
New:
Qan'kédëmenet qaywëtéphep dühmónopöron, lhémën tétéras'eysmeyt.
Opinons?
Paul
Reply