Hmmmm, thanks, that'll work! Together with the moving <i>, it'll even combine to enhance the aesthetic from the other possibilities. So, okay, I think here's what I'll do:Dormouse559 wrote: ↑04 Apr 2021 22:13Another possibility is to pronounce <c g sc> as /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ ʃ/ in the syllable coda (or some similar condition, depending on the details). To get coda /k g sk/, you'd write <ch gh sch>. So /ibd͡ʒarʃt/ would be <ibgiarsct>; meanwhile, /ibd͡ʒarskt/ would be <ibgiarscht>. That does conflict with <c> /t͡s/. Perhaps reassign /t͡s z/ to <z ṡ>.
/m n (ɲ ŋ)/ <m n gn ng>
/p b t d k g (ʔ)/ <p b t d c(h) g(h) ʻ>
/t͡s t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/ <tz c(i) g(i)>
/s z ʃ ʒ/ <s z sc(i)~(i)sc j>
/f v (θ ð) j x (ɣ h)/ <f v s z i h~ch gh h>
/r l (ʎ)/ <r l gl(i)>
Coda /V(C)ʃ(C) V(C)t͡ʃ(C) V(C)d͡ʒ(C)/ are <Vi(C)sc(C) Vi(C)c(C) Vi(C)g(C)>, so eg. <ibgiairsct>, etc. Then, /Vj(C)ʃ(C) Vj(C)t͡ʃ(C) Vj(C)d͡ʒ(C)/ are <Vî(C)sc(C) Vî(C)c(C) Vî(C)g(C)>, so eg. /kajrʃt/ <caîrsct>. I'll also add diphthongs ending in /u̯/ written <û>, so that <i> won't be the only letter with a circumflex, and make the /i̯/ diphthongs explicit diphthongs. I also remembered that Italian uses <gn> for /ɲ/, so... better to copy that too, since there's already the <gl> from Italian.
It also occurred to me that I'm better off making two conlangs out of the one idea after all, one that's more Eastern European-y and one that's more Western European-y at least orthographically, and I guess they're like distantly related languages. So this will be the one set in Sardinia and Corsica, the other one will be set somewhere else. I also messed with the vowels a bit (including vowel harmony), which makes it less fitting to the region, but eh... if Andalusian Spanish has vowel harmony, arguably ANADEW or at least ANADI.
And if I understood correctly what part of what you were talking about you were talking about, then Finnish does something like that as well, although only for emphasis and it's not... uh... grammatical? I mean, it is grammatical but it's not the default way to say those kinds of things. It's practically the same way as in English (and I assume under English influence), though, so I guess probably not the same thing you're talking about since then English counts as well.
But just in case, I'll post two Finnish sentences like that with different emphasis:
Se mikä syö lihaa on koira.
it what eats meat is dog
What eats meat is a/the dog.
Se mitä koira syö on lihaa.
it what dog eats is meat
What the dog eats is meat.
I imagine a teacher might probably mark both as incorrect and write a note like "AAAAAAAAA GET THIS ENGLISH OUT OF MY FINNISH", but I'm not sure if that's the case or if it's actually English influence that allows things like this to be said in Finnish. Could be Swedish, German or Russian influence if it also exists in those languages? Also, at least in the contexts that immediately come to mind where those sentences make sense being said out loud in real life, there might also be an implication of there being confusion (or assumed confusion) on the part of the listener, like, "are you blind? THE DOG is eating meat!!!!" and "are you blind? the dog is eating MEAT!!!!" or whatever.
...of course, there are a bunch of other ways to say the same thing with different emphases and all of them are grammatically correct, but a lot of them would sound unnatural in actual speech.
And sorry, I've gotten even worse at understanding and talking about linguistics than before...