Re: Umlaut (?)

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 jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/

"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."
--G.K. Chesterton