En réponse à Tristan <kesuari@...>:
> >
> It's the easiest, most sensible way of making it inflexional that I
> could think of. And anyway, much the same reduction happens in the
> middle and ends of words.
>
Not as much as it seems to reach the onsets :) .
> >
> Oh indeed! But considering how evil I am, where's my sidekick?
>
Well, actually, you are *my* sidekick! Before you can reach my level of
linguistic evil, you'll have to work a bit more ;))) . Mwahahahahahahahaha!!!!
> >
> Orthographically, yes. But having the same thing evolve different
> ways?
>
Look at French, which evolved Latin /e:/ into /wa/ or /E/ without rhyme or
reason ;))) (there is *really* no rule).
> >
> A bad pun. A round tuit = Around to it.
>
No wonder I couldn't find it in online dictionaries ;)))) .
> >
> It sounds remarkably like Etabnanni is essentially Tibetan done badly.
> (There you go John, another essentially for you.)
LOL!
(Started out with
> lots
> of generally less-weird consonant clusters, but its syllable structure
> is ... CVC with a tone! The tone is determined by the consonant
> cluster
> as well, though the rules aren't especially complex.)
>
Well, you've indeed reinvented Tibetan, although Tibetan is quite monosyllabic,
contrary to Etabnanni :) .
> >
> Maybe Andrew did better than he knew ;)
>
LOL! I only wish that Maggel would be Proto-World ;))) .
Christophe.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.