[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: nu alltr e gw alltr?
Andrew Smith wrote:
> interesting message that one, is there enough evidence to suggest that
> Brithenig would develop features like nu-h-alltr and gw-h-alltr. I like
> inclusive/exclusive marking as a language feature, but I would like a
> discussion before it is formally adopted.
I would favor nu halltr, but not gw halltr, as the latter doesn't
*mean* anything; there is a difference between "we" (including you)
and "we others" (excluding you), but there is no parallel distinction
in the 2nd person to be made.
> 1. on the evidence of germination in Italian, should Brithenig prep. _a_
> be followed by aspirant mutation;
> ad + C > a + CC > a + Ch
Sounds good to me. How about collision with Latin a < ab, which would
cause no mutation? Presumably this would be written af with silent f.
> 2. with the loss of final plural -s, should Brithenig develop a more
> definite indefinite plural than just yn + aspirant mutation?
> 3. I'm working on the architecture of the Brithenig page, breaking each
> section down into separate pages, do readers still want a full page
> option? Other editorial advice welcome. New update posting in the next
> few weeks, depending on how much time I spend tidying it up.
I'm for splitting and not having a single page, but more than 5-6 pages
would also be bad (difficult to print). In any case only 1 version,
since keeping them all consistent would be hard.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)