Re: Zetowvu / Ezotwuv (new conlang)

En réponse à Arthaey Angosii <arthaey@...>:

>
> The vowels are fairly straight-forward:
> /i/  = <i>
> /u/  = <u>
> /e/  = <e>
> /@\/ =  ?
Why not <ee> for /e/ and <e> for /@\/? That would make sense since you have
<ae> for /a/ and <a> for /Q/.

> /o/  = <o>
> /a/  = <ae>
> /Q/  = <a>
>
>
> Let's decompose the language name, Zetowvu/Ezotwuv, both pronounced
> /e::o~wu_X/*.
>
> <e> + <z> = /e::/
> <o> + <t> = /o~/
> <w>       = /w/
> <u> + <v> = /u_X/*
>
> * Is there any IPA symbol for short?  I only saw long, half-long (which
> I
> assume is 1.5x normal length, where short is less than normal length),
> and
> extra-short (which might be what I'm looking for after all).
>
It is. "Short" *is* actually the normal length (1x normal length in your case,
long being typically 2x, and extra-long 3x). Less than the normal length
is "extra-short" (typically 0.5x).

> One romanization method puts the modifying letters before the modified
> letter, as in "Zetowvu"; the second method puts them after, as in
> "Ezotwuv".  The second is easier for me to read, but I like the look of
> the
> first better.  But they get to coexist, so it's okay.  :)
>
Hehe, the first bring if I understood correctly <qr> for /r\`/. I like it :)) .
Ever since I dicovered Teonaht I have a soft spot towards letters used as
modifiers put *in front* of the letters they modify.

> Now, would you expect a language like this to be isolating,
> agglutinating,
> or fusional?  I'm leaning toward highly isolating, but I'd like some
> more
> informed opinions first.  :)
>
Somehow I'd see it more fusional, with lots of alternations and ablauts for
grammatical features.

> I got curious how they might pronounce my name, Arthaey ["Ar\Tei],
> seeing
> as they have no dentals or fricatives.  Perhaps something like
> Saryle/Asrlye:
>
> <a> + <s> = /A:/
> <r>       = /r\/
> <l> + <y> = /L/
> <e>       = /e/
>
> This is, of course, assuming I'm pronounced /L/ correctly.
I wouldn't know. To me replacing a dental fricative with a palatal lateral is a
bit strange. Oh, and I forgot to say it before but [M\] is an approximant, not
a lateral approximant, and should be on the line with [r\], [r\`] and [j]
rather than with the laterals. The velar lateral is [L\].

> --
> Arthaey, Asrlye, and Saryle  ;)
>
It surely *is* an etabnaninnous transliteration :) .

>
> PS - Does anyone have a better ASCII representation of the vowels?
> Here's
> mine:
>
> i y       1 }       M u
>     I Y   I\ U\   U
>  e 2      @\ 8      7 o
>            @
>   E 9     3 3\      V O
>    {       6
>     a &             A Q
>
That's pure X-SAMPA. Here we tend to use a slightly modified version of it,
with { and & switching places (because ae-ligature is much more used as a vowel
than OE-ligature). You can use both X-SAMPA and the conlang-modified form of it
freely, as long as you warn which one you use (the other modifications brought
by us to X-SAMPA are ['] instead of ["] for primary stress and [,] instead of
[%] for secondary stress. They look more like their IPA equivalents, are
aesthetically nicer - at least to me ;)) - and are unambiguous as they are not
used by X-SAMPA at all - it uses [`] for retroflexion and rhoticity, [_>] for
ejectives and [_<] for implosives -. Well, not totally unambiguous as X-SAMPA
has ['] for palatalisation but it provides [_j] for it too).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.