Re: backwards conlanging

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, D Tse wrote:

> >I can imagine.  :-)  I love the idea; it makes a lot of sense and it lets
> >you create families.  The problem is I don't know enough about deriving a
> >language in this way, and all the conlang sites that do suggest this are
> >terribly vague about possibilities.  (Langmaker.com has a neat table of
> >common consonant changes, but doesn't say a darn thing about likely vowel
> >changes.  I'm still reading up on phonetics/phonology and historical
> >linguistics so I can get a handle on the processes involved.)
>
> *SNIKT*!
>
> Anyway, that's what I tried to do; I made up a modern language, and then I
> extracted roots from it and made a second related language from those roots.
>
> But the real point of this message is to ask whether anyone knows the
> address of this "neat table of common consonant changes" mentioned above
> which I have a bit of trouble finding --
It's at http://www.langmaker.com, if you go to the actual articles (I
think it was either issue #1 or #2, probably the former).

YHL