[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thanks for your comments; it's very encouraging to receive comments and
criticisms from (I presume!) interested parties.
> I note that vowels in unstressed (non-initial) syllables are no
> longer limited to orthographic A and E, both pronounced [@].
To be a bit more specific, orthographic A EA AI I, depending on the
qualities of the adjacent consonants... but please excuse my pedantry!
> This contradicted the existing paradigms anyhow.
I have to admit not knowing what you mean by this - could you clarify? I
should point out that Breathanach is in a state of some flux at the
moment, since I now have access to more detailed descriptions of the
sound-changes in the Q-Celtic languages.
> But I continue to think that reducing *all* unstressed vowels to
> [@] is overkill. Have a three-vowel system [@ I U] if you want,
> but I can think of no Romance language that *totally* disposes of
> a front-back distinction even outside stress.
The problem, of course, is that of reconciling the sound-systems of
Q-Celtic with Romance; I imagine that it was a lot easier with
Brithenig. As I understand it, information which in Romance is carried
by vowel quality is more likely to be carried by consonant quality in
Breathanach - although, as you point out, my solution is probably too
far towards Q-Celtic. I've had similar problems with long vowels, and
have yet to come across a satisfactory solution.
Another awkward question concerns the diphthongs /ia ua/: should these
evolve from original long /e o/, as in Q-Celtic, or from short /e o/, as
In the meantime, I've just moved house (well, flat actually), so it'll
be a few days before I'm able to update the Breathanach pages. Keep
checking, though, just in case...
Regards, and thanks again,
 My mission in life is to create original,  Geoff Eddy, in
 interesting and memorable .signature files.  (the one in
 --++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++ 
 Homepage is at http://www.cix.co.uk/~morven  This space for