Re: CHAT: Nakiltipkaspimak

Tal skrev:

> Ooh typology! Me wanna! Morphology too? How good is the
> library? The one here is much too light on typology and
> morphology for obvious reasons. Maybe if there's such a
> thing as inter-scandinavian library loan...
Mostly morphology. Lots of syntax. And morphosyntax. We have
Östen Dahl and Masja Koptjevskaja-Tamm as prof and assistant
prof so it's not that strange that typology (and morphology)
is our main thing. We do have a pretty good phonetics department
too, though.

The library is kinda sucky. It's not _that_ bad, but there should
be lots more grammars than there is. Masja is always complaining
about the lack of good grammars at our library.

> Maybe personal experience when the subject is implicit and
> hearsay when it is overriden (made explicit that is)? Most in the
> spirit of the culture however is to let the default be: "the one
> who says <x> does not take a stand as to the validity of said
> <x>, the listener be the judge." Especially since not mentioning
> something (dropping tenses, making existence, 1s subjects and 3
> unknown objects implicit etc.) is so widespread: "Now I won't
> bother to mention when it happened or whether it's true or
> whodunnit 'cause it ain't really relevant, you see."
That sounds like the way to go, imho. Couldn't have come up with
a better rule myself. :)

> Can't do that 'un yet, no free-standing word for "to be" :)
Why would you even need one? :p

> Ah but that's no fuuun... b'sides can IPA actually handle those
> diphthongs?
Another good question. (Another?) Well, I hope it can... If there
aren't even IPA-signs, I'm not sure _I_ can pronounce them. :)

> Heh, problem here is that "ay" is a special case, because in
> ISO-8859-1 there's no y with accent grave... Both aÿ and åì
> are used elsewhere, I haven't standardized on one of 'em yet
> (suggestions?).
{å} looks _very_ Scandinavian, though I haven't seen it in any
other conlang so there you have two good reasons for {åì}.

Daniel