From: habarakhe4 (theophilus88@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 17:48:32 EST
--- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Christian Thalmann"
<cinga@g...> wrote:
> --- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, "habarakhe4"
> <theophilus88@h...> wrote:
>
> > I have a similar problem with Porphyrean (Azorean) Fortunatian.
The
> > majority of settlers had already merged the retroflex plosives
and
> > alveopalatal affricates,
>
> Good. I'm not fond of retroflexes at all. ;-)
>
>
>
> > but now the "iubonex" are lowering the
> > vowels in unstressed syllables.
>
> And who would they be? (You've probably mentioned it before,
> I'm just terrible with names. ;-)
>
iubonex [jub@neS] just means 'youths', but in this context is better
taken as 'those goddamn punk kids what don't respect their elders'
>
>
> > Other changes include fronting of [s] to [T] and [S] to [s],
> > including affricates.
> > [fat.] > [fat_S] > [fat_s]
> > [tsrat] > [tTrat] (whee! I have [tT]!)
>
> You mean you *like* [tT]? ;-)
>
>
>
> > Initial consonant clusters are simplifying, although I have yet
to
> > figure out the precise details.
>
> Sounds good. Though on the other hand, Fortunatian loses some
> of its unconditional exoticity with these changes. Is this
> development only a slang or a global movement of the Fortunatian
language?
>
Only Porphyrean 'Free' Fortunatian exhibits this behavior. Some
attribute this development to 'continental contamination of the
language'. 'Captive' Fortunatian remains more conservative.
>
>
> -- Christian Thalmann
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:19:46 EST