Print

Print


On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:13:20 +0200, Christian Thalmann <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Phew!  So somebody *has* read it after all.  =P
>
>--- In conlang@y..., Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@E...> wrote:
>
>> >Example:
>> >
>> >fija /"fi:j@/ "daughter"
>> >fija bella /"fi:j@"vell@/ "beautiful daughter"
>> >tua fija aumbrosa /"tu:@"vi:jom"bro:z@/ "love-smitten daughter"
>> >
>> >fiju /"fi:j@/ "son"
>> >fiju bellu /"fi:j@"bell@/ "beautiful son"
>> >tuu fiju aumbrosu /"tu:@"fi:j@zom"bro:z@/ "love-smitten son"
>>
>> 1) if not writing any indication for the 1st /z/ in the 6th example,
>> other than the {u}, is intentional,
>
>Yes, it's intentional.  The Jovians regard the intrusive /z/ as a
>mutation caused by the ending |u|.

OK. Then final {u} (but not medial) is always [@z] before a vowel, and
final or medial {u} inhibits mutation? I guess I should take a look at your
webpage -- just did: I didn't see mention of medials.

<AFMCL>
In developing Rubaga orthography, I'm taking into account the tendency that
people have of writing as they hear it along with the somewhat conflicting
tendency for orthography to be conservative, so spoken consonants are
always written. Conhistorically, Rubaga writing evolves from Latin writing
without being designed. Which implies, I suppose, that another tendency,
that of following prescriptive grammarians, died out there.
</AFMCL>

>> 2) why {tua} and {tuu} are not reflected in the translations, and
>
>Mea culpa (mia couba /mi:@gowb@/).  It should be "*your* love-smitten
>son/daughter" in the translations.

I guessed that, but didn't want to jump to conclusions.

>> 3) what specifically Einstein's theory of relativity has to do with a
>> new phonology.
>
>I tried to draw an analogy on the grounds that both are large-scale
>revolutions in an established system triggered by a single changed
>axiom.  Yeah, it's far-fetched.  =P

That's not really far-fetched; it's only that your segue was a little
abrupt, making it seem like a non-sequitur.

Jeff

>
>-- Christian Thalmann