From: Barry Garcia (barry_garcia@csumb.edu)
Date: Sat Aug 24 2002 - 16:56:50 EST
romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com writes:
>That's really a matter of taste, I think. Personally, I am not a fan of
>apostrophes in the text, so the second possitility seems least attractive
>to me
>(unless it was meant to represent e-acutus, which I still wouldn't like
>too
>much anyway).
>I would probably prefer "emi": It's simple, clear, and modifies the
>article
>somewhat, which makes it already more attractive.
I agree mostly :). Montreiano in writing would write de emi as "d'emi",
and it does this with simple nouns: d'aguila. Same with la - l'aguila.
>
>eu mi > emi
>la mi > lami
>lo mi > lomi (?)
>How do you handle the plural?
>
Hum. Hadn't really considered that yet (silly silly), but i think
logically it would be: Lomis, lotus, losus, lamis, latus, lasus.
I think. Any better ideas?
__________________________
No the moth dont care when he sees the flame
The moth dont care if the flame is real
Cause flame and moth got a sweetheart deal
And nothing fuels a good flirtation
Like need, and anger, and desperation
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:19:45 EST