Re: Umlaut (?)
|From:||JS Bangs <jaspax@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, August 22, 2002, 18:57|
Balazs Sudar sikyal:
> Hi all!
> So I ask again two questions:
> 1. Is the system described OK like this?
That depends. There isn't anything particularly unnatural as you've
described it, so yes, it's OK. My suggestion is that you make the results
a little more uniform--it's already pretty good, but not great.
> 2. How would you call it? ;-)
I-affection, or umlaut. Really, the esoteric arguments of these two guys
shouldn't bother you too much ;-).
> I tried to create a system like in natural languages. But I have problem
> with the terms that don't appear in german linguistics, because I'm
> studying only that. It was like german umlaut, that's why I thought it
> was umlaut. I only decided to do that change, whatever it's called. What
> do you think it is? And is it correct as I've described it?
This isn't like German umlaut, since it is affecting completely different
things. But it's still a kind of vowel-affection, and if that's what you
wanted, then you got it.
Jesse S. Bangs firstname.lastname@example.org
"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."