Re: Elvish ideas ...

En réponse à Andreas Johansson :

Why do I keep wanting to read "Evil ideas ..."? ;))))))


>The Elves we're speaking of are essentially just skinny, long-lived humans
>with pointy ears -
How much long-lived?


>_t d c g_ are [t d k g] before back vowels; before _i_ and _e_ they're
>respectively [tS dZ tS dZ] - notice that the alveolar-velar distinction is
>neutralized; it returns with fricativization, since _th dh ch gh_ before front
>vowels is [T D S Z] (cf [T D x G] before back ones).
>
>The "front" versions of these consonants can be forced before back vowels by
>inserting a _-e-_; _cea_ is [tSa].
And how do you force the back pronunciation before front vowels? Or isn't 
that possible? If it is, my personal favourite would probably be -a- 
(creating in front of i another ambiguity between [aj] and [i] after a back 
vowel. As you know, I love those things ;)) ).

>Initially or preceeded by a consonant other than _t d c g ch gh_, _e_ before a
>back vowel spells [j], eg _creach_ [krjax].
I see that a final t, d, c or g (and their fricative versions) receives its 
back pronunciation. How do you force a front pronunciation there? Or is it 
not possible? You could allow final mute -e and/or -i, possibly coming from 
a time when they were actually pronounced, but fell from pronunciation due 
to sound changes :) .

>Similarly, _o_ before an unrounded vowel
>spells [w], eg _coar_ [kwar].
Having been reading a grammar of Portuguese, I can only say I like the 
choice :) .


>An uninflected noun never begins in a fricative; fricativizing an initial stop
>makes the noun definite, eg _creach_ "castle", _chreach_ "the castle". It
>should be stressed that "fricative" and "fricativizing" here essentially
>means "anything spelt as stop+h" and "add -h" respectively.  Thus we also see
>_cea_ [tSa] "lady" and _chea_ [Sa] "the lady". I'm not yet sure what to do
>with nouns beginning in a vowel, liquid or [w-] or [j-] - leaving those
>without a definite-indefinite distinction strikes me as odd,
Why? Basque has this kind of problem in some cases with nouns ending in -a, 
but that doesn't make it stop from having a lot of its nouns ending in -a 
:))) . Personally, in the case of nouns beginning with a vowel, liquid or 
[w] or [j], I'd put the "h" anyway (in front of the vowel if no consonant 
at all) but leave it unpronounced. I like orthographic changes which are 
not shown in the pronunciation (hey, I'm not French for nothing! :) ). Of 
course, I don't know if it's possible in the original script...

>  but I don't
>really know what I want to do with them. Something evil, little doubt.
So *that*'s why I kept wanting to read "Evil ideas ..." ;)))) .

>Plurals, more well-behavedly, are formed by adding _-an_, or, after vowels,
>simply _-n_, except, for no good reason, when nouns end in a fricative, in
>which case the fricative becomes a stop (AKA, the "h" is dropped) and a
>homorganic nasal is inserted before the newly-born stop. Eg _cean_ "ladies",
>_canan_ "lords" (sg _can_), but _creanc_ "castles".
Nice. I suppose you'll have a dialect where the nasal will become 
unpronounced, but will have left its mark by nasalising the vowel, so that 
plural is marked by nasalisation of the vowel and defricativisation of the 
final fricative? ;)))

>Accusatives, serving as direct objects, and probably in some other
>miscellaneous functions, are formed by suffixing -o to the stem. It goes
>before the pl -an (which loses its -a-), but of course after the pl infix with
>final former fricatives. Not yet sure how it combines with nouns ending in
>vowels.
After -o, I'd see it disappear. There's nothing wrong with having some 
nouns lacking a case distinction for phonetic reasons. I'd do the same with 
nouns ending in -u (because I'm evil ;)) ), and with nouns ending in -a, -e 
or -i, I'd have the -o suffix put there, but pronounced [w], introducing 
falling diphtongues in [w] :)) (creating again another ambiguity with eo: 
[ew] or [o] after a front consonant ;))) ). But that's just a suggestion :) .

>The possessive, finally, is formed by infixing an _-i-_ , turning the stem
>vowel into an diphthong. Pronunciation; _ii_ [ej], _ei_ [ej], _ai_ [aj], _oi_
>[oj], _ui_ [uj]. Yes, _oi_ is ambigious between [wi] and [oj].
What's wrong with that? ;))))

>  The possessive
>goes after the thing possessed; _chreach chain_ "the castle of the lord". To
>top it off, it, out of misplaced sympathy, echoes any accusative ending on the
>thing possessed, giving us things like _chreanco chainon_ "the castles (acc)
>of the lords".
I like it :) . It does, at first sight, give a vaguely Celtic impression, 
but when you get deeper in it you see that that Celtic impression is 
misplaced :))) . I like conlangs that try to mislead people ;))) .

>Well, that'll have to suffice for now.
Yep, waiting for the verbs now ;))) .


Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang. 

Replies