Re: Chevraqis: a sketch

On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Fabian wrote:

> > alphabet equivalents:
> > n  m  b  br  v (also f)  vr  r (l in some dialects)
> > s  z  sj (sh, or the almost "sh" you find in Korean)
> > j  ch
> > t (glottalized at the end of a word)
> > d (ditto)
> > q (ditto, and pronounced as a k)
>
> Since you're not using a k for anything else, why not just use a k for the
> /k/ sound? I keep wanting to read it as a glottal stop.
I had /k/ and /q/ originally, with one being harsher than the other, then
ditched it.  I'm still messing around with phonemes.  :-/  What I really
need is a tape cassette with a random assortment of non-English sounds so
I can pick and choose.

> Also, is /br/ the only consonant cluster in the language? It seems a bit
> anomalous.
/dr/ is the other one.  I could ditch them; I'm not that attached to
anything in this language.  <G>

> > vowels (strong/weak)
> > i (i/I)
> > e (e/schwa)
> > a (a/schwa)
> > o (as in Japanese o)
> > u (as in Japanese u)
> >
> > diphthongs:
> > aé (eI)
> > aí (aI)
>
> Why wouldn't these have evolved as ei and ai? That fits teh monothong
> orthography better, unless you're proposing a very irregular sound change. I
> don't know of any natlang sound changes that are equivalent to this one.
Peculiarity of the writing system, also subject to revision.

> > Verbs:
> > Infinitives always end in -u.
> > Verbs inflect only by tense, not by number or person.
>
> By having infinitives, you are implying a lot of pseudo-indo-european
> grammar. Japanese lacks this, as does Arabic, on which I thought you were
> basing some stuff.
I'm basing it on one article I read about Arabic morphology.  <rueful
look>  I thought it was a neat idea.

The two Japanese grammars I have treat the -u form as a sort of
infinitive, and the parallel structure in Korean (ends in -da) is
something I've thought of as an infinitive.  I wonder now if it's my
English background, plus the fact that those grammars were intended for
English speakers.  Thanks for catching that.  I was going to have the
infinitive also function as an imperative (I *think* the LCK mentioned
that most languages pick a simple form for the imperative, or was it that
Ranto on Esperanto?) so maybe I'll go that route.

> > I've been having fun with the static/dynamic distinction, and coming up
> > with how meanings cluster around these things, though I'm probably
> > getting it all wrong.  <wry g>
>
> The arabic approach is that adjectives are essentially static verbs.
> Consider HMR (red). the static form (ahmar) is 'to be red'. the dynamic form
> (hamar) is classed as a type 1 verb, and means 'to become red ; to blush'.
> the type 2 form is hammar, to make someone blush. I've read that there are
> about 44 different word shapes for each 3 letter root in arabic.
My adjectives were originally based on what I gleaned from two Japanese
grammars, so the interface probably is screwy and will remain so until I
learn more.

I think I'll do a bit les than 44 word shapes, though.

YHL