
and

The language itself has been improved almost as much.




1. Uncertain, actually. From the modern languages we would reconstruct /dZ/ (like English j), though the exact manner of articulation is debatable. Axunashin <b>j</b> however seems to have been a fricative /J/, the voiced version of /?/, and this may be influenced by Wede:i.Gareth wrote:A couple of questions about Wede:i:
How do you prounounce "j"?
There are a few medial clusters like kz' and kg. Are they pronounced as written or is there assimilation to gz' and gg?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. It's just 733 pixels wide; surely you don't have some sort of archaic retrocomputing device that can't handle that? What operating system and browser are you using? Mac IE can handle even a browser window narrower than the map (the text just appears beneath it).Glenn Kempf wrote:...Incidentally, Mark, deeply impressed though I am by your updating of Wedei and its descendants, I have to note that your beautiful map almost entirely obscures the top portion of the text (on my screen, anyway).
It worked; thanks! (I'll change it back, however, since the text is now a bit small to read, especially for my parents.)Pentekonter wrote:It did that to me, too, Glenn. My problem was that I had to change my Screen Area from 800 by 600 pixels to 1024 by768 pixles.
(To do this in Windows, just right click on the desktop and click properties and then click on the Settings tab...then use the little slide bar to adjust the screen size)
800x600?! That's the dark (or more precisely the cramped) ages, man!Pentekonter wrote:It did that to me, too, Glenn. My problem was that I had to change my Screen Area from 800 by 600 pixels to 1024 by768 pixles.
Yes, if you have a Unicode font that contains them. The problem is that Unicode on IE, the most popular browser, does not degrade nicely. It doesn't replace characters it can't render with something recognizable; it displays a box or a question mark.And a question: Zomp, aren't those letters such as ng and ? with tilde renderable in Unicode?
Transcription! A:rgh! Why not use acutes or macrons?
Some grammatic errors in the document: referring to Wedēi in both past and present tenses, and a few "is"s where there should have been "are"s.
Does this "fist & fingers" number system mean that when Xengi peasants sign numbers to each other meaning "one more" than to we are used to (i.e. they hold up 2 fingers for 3)?
What differentiates <ii> from <i:>? Is the former /i?i/ whereas the latter /i:/?
I am a bit disappointed at lack of full orthographical information, but it doesn't bother me too much.

I believe that this is indeed the case; I've been thinking about similar issues for my Kiarloni people, who use a duodecimal (base 12) number system.Rory wrote:Does this "fist & fingers" number system mean that when Xengi peasants sign numbers to each other meaning "one more" than to we are used to (i.e. they hold up 2 fingers for 3)?
Sorry, colons are the longstanding practice (8 years) of Wede:iologists.Rory wrote:Transcription! A:rgh! Why not use acutes or macrons?
Yes indeed. If you venture into a Xurnese bar and hold up one finger, you'll get two beers.Does this "fist & fingers" number system mean that when Xengi peasants sign numbers to each other meaning "one more" than to we are used to (i.e. they hold up 2 fingers for 3)?
Phonetically, nothing at all. Where you see ii, there's a morpheme boundary in between; e.g. liingokze = li + ing + ok + ze. A long vowel (as in Bi:dau) is always part of a single morpheme.What differentiates <ii> from <i:>? Is the former /i?i/ whereas the latter /i:/?
Do you mean, full details on the logographic writing system? Well, someday I'd like to provide that-- not many people have created a whole one, I think. The full system needs 1095 glyphs, of which I've worked out about 135. (I worked out those needed for all the syllables of Axunashin.)I am a bit disappointed at lack of full orthographical information, but it doesn't bother me too much.

