Re: Zetowvu / Ezotwuv (new conlang)

Tristan wrote:
>Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>Tristan wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 21:43, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>> > Jrg Rhiemeier (I think he's back onlist now) has made an ASCII-IPA
>>>scheme
>>> > called "CPA", which's the best, mnemonically speaking, I've seen. I
>>>dunno if
>>> > its available anyplace on the 'net right now, tho'.
>>>
>>>To say that 'which's' seems odd in that context would be an
>>>understatement. I'm not sure what the rules are about contractions, but
>>>that seems totally against them.
>>
>>It does?  What, specifically, makes it odd in the above context? In what
>>contexts would you expect it?
>
>I have a suspicion that it's 'which' itself. Replacing 'which' with
>'CPA' renders it perfectly happy: 'CPA's the best, mnemonically
>speaking...'. I can't think of a context where 'which' would take 's
>(other than less formally to mean 'whose'). Or maybe I can, but it's
>limited to speech and would be totally wrong in writing. Or perhaps even
>it's the /ItS/ pulling the /@/ to something that sounds more like /I/ to
>my ear. All three are possiblities, but it wouldn't surprise me if it
>was the middle one that was correct.
>
>Sorry I couldn't be more help. I'm a lot better at speaking English that
>explaining all the complexities of contractions. :)
Thanks anyways. I should perhaps better avoid that particular contraction in
writing then. It's not like I'd pronounce non-emphasized "which is" and
"which's" any different anyway.

As for being better at speaking than explaining, if think it's know as being
a native speaker. I'm alot more aware how I speak English (and German) than
Swedish, while of course being better at the later.


                                    Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus