Re: Update for Jovian
| From: | Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 22:32 |
|---|
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:24:19 +0200, Christian Thalmann <cinga@...>
wrote:
>Einstein's Theory of Relativity basically hinges upon a single simple
>assumption (namely that vacuum light speed is equally large in all
>frames of reference) that has radical and fundamental consequences for
>the whole edifice of physics.
>
>Similarly, I have made a single simple change in the phonology of
>Jovian (namely that final -u should be pronounced as /@/ rather than
>/U/), which has led me to add more mutations and a set of optional
articles.
>
>The problem was that feminine and masculine nouns of the same stem
>(e.g. |fiju| and |fija| from Latin filius, filia) sounded
>indistinguishable (/"fi:j@/). So I decided that the ending -u, being
>derived from Latin -us, should not cause lenition like other final
>vowels. What is more, the Latin s actually becomes audible when a
>consonant follows.
>
>Example:
>
>fija /"fi:j@/ "daughter"
>fija bella /"fi:j@"vell@/ "beautiful daughter"
>tua fija aumbrosa /"tu:@"vi:jom"bro:z@/ "love-smitten daughter"
>
>fiju /"fi:j@/ "son"
>fiju bellu /"fi:j@"bell@/ "beautiful son"
>tuu fiju aumbrosu /"tu:@"fi:j@zom"bro:z@/ "love-smitten son"
>
>In case you're wondering, aumbrosu < aomrosus < amorosus.
That part, I figured out. I _am_ wondering about:
1) if not writing any indication for the 1st /z/ in the 6th example, other
than the {u}, is intentional,
2) why {tua} and {tuu} are not reflected in the translations, and
3) what specifically Einstein's theory of relativity has to do with a new
phonology.
Jeff J.