The CBB

North-the. c;

Certainly the basic runes would also double as their original meanings, akin to the 149 basic radicals in Kanji/Hanzi. i.e. Dang it, how did I not think of that? Of course! Of course all in PG is alnaz if the source I found is correct, but you can say only the first syllable counts for this sort of...

Dat cyborg länsman person ish.

I made a cup of coffee.



http://i.imgur.com/j6lRX7H.jpg

Carl from Jimmy Neutron says KWASAAAA at least.

Couldn't certain things be simplified and suggesting no particular pronunciation? I.e. all plural forms are written as the singular with an additional sign that's no more than a grammatical plural marker — it contains no actual phonetic information and would be used no matter whether the transition ...

HoskhMatriarch wrote:fōtsi

Where did you get that from? Don't you mean *fōtiz?

Could the demonstrative be thrown on the end of the adjective in a head-final language though without losing definite articles or anything? If this is what you mean, North Germanic may sometimes triple -mark definiteness (you heard that right!), so in that case, yes. Example: den store hunden (the ...

These pronominal endings were often longer than the nominal endings and contained more consonants, which is one of the reasons why they have remained more distinct in Modern German. Just expanding on this with an example for Hoskh: in nouns, the accusative tended to be a nasalised vowel (such as *-...

What? I thought diæRIsis was how it was supposed to be stressed. I can't remember ever hearing anything else.

*Am I still okay using the neuter singular here? Rétt er það, en ekki gleyma að sum lýsingarorð hafa sérstakar beygingar í atviksmyndinni. Correct, but don't forget that some adjectives have special inflections in the adverbial form. Til dæmis eru mynduð atviksorð úr lýsingarorðum er enda á -leg(ur...

Just remembered I thought vicinity was spelled and pronounced vincity.

I thought tongue was spelled <tounge> forever, until just a few years ago. It makes more sense if you know that <-nge> is /ndʒ/ in native English spelling. I'm with the princess on this one. Tongue makes me think /tʌŋg(ə)/. Tounge seems to be an obsolete spelling too, so I for one will go on spelli...

I thought tongue was spelled <tounge> forever, until just a few years ago.

Faroese does the same thing (hvørfall et c.) but Icelandic sticks with more or less direct translations of Græco-Latin terminology or their own literal meanings, such as nefnifall (namingcase = nominative) and eignarfall (owningcase = genitive).

And Norwegian rather than dåtid/datid uses fortid (foretime).

Also both use framtid/fremtid for future (forthtime~fronttime).

Nessimon wrote:What I claim is that no language distinguishes between [pʲ], [pj] and [pʲj].

If I've correctly understood Pirka's 500 lectures on Russian over at the IRC channel, this is in fact what Russian does.

That's how I do it in my conlang at least but it might not be necessary depending on the details of the language.

I think the bear thing is problematic in more ways that that. There are more things than simply the modern nominative to indicate that it should have come from *bernuz. The entire declension in modern Icelandic is identical to that of *ferþuz. Not only would the n have had to spread from only two pl...

What thing about Swedish? Storskogen and that sort of stuff? I'd just call that compounding, tho I know it's more common and productive in certain dialects for "spontaneous formations" which might just have been free-standing adjective + free-standing noun in other dialects. But is that re...

Oh, right.

Could've been stch.