Amber Adams

> But seriously, my knowledge of Indian historical linguistics is lacking
> a bit as well, so maybe this isn't entirely correct either, but it was
> my impression that the retroflex/dental distinction rose under Dravidian
> influence.
> So, maybe it might be more proper to say that it didn't lose it, but
> just never developed it? (Which might affect some of your sound changes,
> I really have no idea.)

No, the ancestors of the Shanstanyans emigrated to Telmona *after* Sanskrit
was standardised by Panini- so it's basically derived from literary

> Ah... what happened to Sanskrit's !@*#$*$ number of cases, and the dual
> number?

According to my sound-changes the only ones that stay distinct are the
accusative, instrumental, genitive and locative. The others just merged into
other cases. The dual disappeared because of the paucity of distinct

> Just out of curiosity, do you have a concultural reason why an alphabetic
> script rose, instead of a syllabary like the real Brahmi-spawn?
> (Not to say it couldn't happen, just curious)

Well, the "inherent vowel of most Brahmi-derived scripts isn't there, ther
is not "default" vowel because they all occur pretty much with the same
frequency. So it seemed easier to have seperate vowel-characters rather than
have a diacritic for every other consonant.