Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Zetowvu / Ezotwuv (new conlang)

From:Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>
Date:Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 16:55
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