Print

Print


For typing ć č ç ċ I use the alt-latin keyboard layout, it works for me and
uses US English as the base layout.


On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Scott Hlad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Wow, the response has been overwhelming. Thanks you to everyone. I'll
> respond to everyone on this post.
>
> 1) I have corrected Morphology to Phonology thanks!
> 2) I went back and forth in my mind as to whether to have diacritics on sh,
> ch etc. I use Access for my dictionary database but in a table those
> diacritics don't display correctly. Typing them on a US English keyboard is
> difficult. I have never explored another dictionary program although I know
> that we recently had a long conversation on line. I could use Excel but I
> have the same problem with the diacritics.
> 3) Hard /soft /ambiguous consonants. This discussion is sadly over my head
> a
> bit, though I'm fascinated by it. I have more reading to do.
> 4) Kriesheliezh: As to _kr_ not being permitted. I use c to mean a single
> consonant, a digraph, or a combination such as kr, sp, etc. And you were
> correct with the word. It should be krieshelliezh. Thanks
> 5) It was suggested that I have a long way to go on syntax. What am I
> missing?
> Scotto
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Alex Fink
> Sent: January 22, 2012 7:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The Grammar of Asirka
>
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:02:26 +0000, Michael Everson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 22 Jan 2012, at 07:11, Scott Hlad wrote:
> >
> >> http://www3.telus.net/scotto/rumansa/TheGrammarOfAsirka.pdf
> >
> >Why the terms "hard" and "soft" for the consonants? [4] and [l] are very
> similar? I see that you have spelling rules regarding these, but how is [x]
> hard and other voiceless fricatives like [S] an [T] soft? I'm not sure the
> terminology is convincing. In Slavic "soft" is often used for
> "palatalized";
> in Irish "slender" is used.
>
> I was going to ask about this too.  Your hard/sort/ambiguous split comes
> close to having the feel of a split into _historically_
> unpalatalised/palatalised/palatalisation-neutral, or a variant thereof.
> Affricates and [S Z] etc. are the sort of stuff palatalisation likes to
> produce; [4] resisting palatalisation is common, and [l] being exclusively
> soft could work too (maybe there was a Polish-type historical [l l_j] > [5
> l(_j)] > [w l] > [0 l] or [v l]).  And maybe palatalisation never took hold
> on labials, or maybe they are a separate class due to another sound change.
>  But the fricatives all being soft is a little harder to motivate: I'd
> expect at least one more set to be hard, so that maybe e.g. [T s] [x S] are
> hard/soft pairs, paralleling [t ts)] [k tS)]  (and then [D z] [d z] [g Z] I
> guess, with *voiced affricates having decayed to fricatives).  And the
> nasals are entirely out of line!  [m n] palatal but [J] not?!  I'd expect
> [n] hard [J] soft [m] neutral.
>
> We should also look at the alternations they condition.  If the grounds for
> the division is historically unpal'd/pal'd/labial, then one would expect
> the
> corresponding vowels to have been historically front/nonfront/neutral, or
> maybe front/nonfront/(back) rounded.  The latter works well for your
> perfective alternation if /y/ were once [1] or so.  It's stranger for the
> irrealis alternation; one expects /o/ and /a/ to be swapped.  So maybe
> there
> was also a historical sound change exchanging [o] and [a].  Or maybe the
> soft alternant being <ei> and not <e> is a sign that the original sound was
> a diphthong and that explains the weird developments...?
>
> For the vowels for which you have listed tense and lax values, what is it
> that determines which value is used in a given word?  And why is it that
> only /e i o/ have this alternation?  I'd expect at least /2/ to as well.
> Perhaps also /y u/, but perhaps not if the reason /i/ does relates to the
> fact that <ie> is always /I/ (but was that supposed to be /i/?  you wrote a
> literal capital <I>).
>
> In the word _kriesheliezh_, there seems to be an onset cluster _kr-_ which
> you have not permitted, and I also thought your syllabification rules would
> place the /l/ like -she-liezh, not -shel-iezh.
>
> What else?  I'm amused by your enumeration of excreta (a gender system
> could
> very well do that, yeah!).
> I like the forms you've chosen for the various inanimate/animate contrasts,
> they're nicely half-patterned and redolent of shortenings of something
> earlier more regular.
>
> You've got a lot of prepositions with very neat circumscribed senses; it is
> normal for the way prepositions divide up senses to be messy (why is it "in
> a car" but "on a bus"?  is it _na Ukraine_ or _v Ukraine_? ...).
>
> And it looks like you've got a long way to go on syntax, yet.
>
> Alex
>