Re: nu alltr e gw alltr?

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

Andrew Smith wrote:

> interesting message that one, is there enough evidence to suggest that
> Brithenig would develop features like nu-h-alltr and gw-h-alltr.  I like
> inclusive/exclusive marking as a language feature, but I would like a
> discussion before it is formally adopted.

I would favor nu halltr, but not gw halltr, as the latter doesn't
*mean* anything; there is a difference between "we" (including you)
and "we others" (excluding you), but there is no parallel distinction
in the 2nd person to be made.

> 1. on the evidence of germination in Italian, should Brithenig prep. _a_
> be followed by aspirant mutation;
> 
> ad + C > a + CC > a + Ch

Sounds good to me.  How about collision with Latin a < ab, which would
cause no mutation?  Presumably this would be written af with silent f.
 
> 2. with the loss of final plural -s, should Brithenig develop a more
> definite indefinite plural than just yn + aspirant mutation?

> 3. I'm working on the architecture of the Brithenig page, breaking each
> section down into separate pages, do readers still want a full page
> option?  Other editorial advice welcome.  New update posting in the next
> few weeks, depending on how much time I spend tidying it up.

I'm for splitting and not having a single page, but more than 5-6 pages
would also be bad (difficult to print).  In any case only 1 version,
since keeping them all consistent would be hard.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)