CONLANG Digest - 10 Nov 2000
|From:||Muke Tever <alrivera@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, November 12, 2000, 13:37|
> From: Barry Garcia <Barry_Garcia@...>
> Subject: Re: Whatever happened to Cosseran?
> CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU writes:
> >Looks cool :) (And you came up with other m'n words I couldn't think of!)
> >It's thought that <gn> in Latin was actually /Nn/, and that later became
> >/JJ/. /nn/ > /Nn/ seems a bit odd to me, but it's just dissimilation, not
> >too strange in the grand scheme of things.
> Yes, my reason was dissimilation. Also, it's a way to distinguish the
> language from the other Romance langs. Interesting that <gn> was /Nn/,
> would never have guessed from the orthography.
If so, it would be somewhat parallel to the use of Greek agma, no?
> From: Yoon Ha Lee <yl112@...>
> Subject: Re: New (Well, Revamped) Language: TIEG'EW / GABWE
> > Well, the epenthetic vowel could be a lax vowel /@ I U/ close to next
> > vowel. It could also be close to the point of articulation of the
> > consonants: labial and velar would bring /U/, coronal, uvular and
> > faringeals would bring /@/, palatals would bring /I/... or something
> > like that. This way they become more systematic.
> Hmm. If you're working with a limited vowel set how do you manage this?
> I have a boring system of /e i a o u/ plus /I/ and /@/, but lack /U/.
> I'll figure something out. Thanks. :-)
You could always invent an /U/ that only appears in these kinds of contexts.
That's sort of what Hadwan does with /E/, as its vowel system is even
smaller with something like /a I Y U/. (Actually the construct comes up
enough that /E/ can be fairly common, but only before labials, [at least in
Hadwan B] so...)