[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Christian Thalmann" <cinga@g...> wrote: > --- In romanceconlang@yahoogroups.com, "habarakhe4" > <theophilus88@h...> wrote: > > > I have a similar problem with Porphyrean (Azorean) Fortunatian. The > > majority of settlers had already merged the retroflex plosives and > > alveopalatal affricates, > > Good. I'm not fond of retroflexes at all. ;-) > > > > > but now the "iubonex" are lowering the > > vowels in unstressed syllables. > > And who would they be? (You've probably mentioned it before, > I'm just terrible with names. ;-) > iubonex [jub@neS] just means 'youths', but in this context is better taken as 'those goddamn punk kids what don't respect their elders' > > > > Other changes include fronting of [s] to [T] and [S] to [s], > > including affricates. > > [fat.] > [fat_S] > [fat_s] > > [tsrat] > [tTrat] (whee! I have [tT]!) > > You mean you *like* [tT]? ;-) > > > > > Initial consonant clusters are simplifying, although I have yet to > > figure out the precise details. > > Sounds good. Though on the other hand, Fortunatian loses some > of its unconditional exoticity with these changes. Is this > development only a slang or a global movement of the Fortunatian language? > Only Porphyrean 'Free' Fortunatian exhibits this behavior. Some attribute this development to 'continental contamination of the language'. 'Captive' Fortunatian remains more conservative. > > > -- Christian Thalmann