Re: Zetowvu / Ezotwuv (new conlang)

From: "Andreas Johansson" <and_yo@...>
Subject: Re: Zetowvu / Ezotwuv (new conlang)


> 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?
"which" doesn't take "is" as a contraction after it in writing.  In my own
spoken English it sounds the same as any other contracted "is", but it just
isn't written that way.  And the /tS/ seems to have something to do with it,
but it's not complete.  From what I can tell, words with "tch" at the end
don't take "'s", but "ch" ones can.  Except "which", perhaps due to being a
homophone of "witch".  I really don't know for sure, but I know that "which"
won't take _written_ "'s".

Reply