June 24th, 2009

Fifty Pence

...yes, but is it plausible?

So, I've been playing with a few of my conlangs recently. Two of them (Ćęjále and Laŕḁ́sa) are supposed to be descended from a common parent (Ancient Sutáve), with some influence from the languages that existed before the Sutáve culture displaced them. I'm trying to figure out what sound changes occurred to yield two very dissimilar languages.

So, as a prototype, I took the Ćęjále and Laŕḁ́sa noun stems for "king," wana and bukås-, and came up with this history:

wana- < wa:na:- < (wa:ŋa:-) < wə:ŋa:s- < wɻ:ŋa:sa-
bukås- < bu:kås- < ----------|

Is that at all believable?

(Pronunciation note: pretty much like IPA, but å == open-o, Ć == ʧ, ŕ is tapped, and ę == e)

x-posted to conlangs
Can&#39;t fly, run instead

(no subject)

Can you help me with some queries, basically I want to find out if some myths about English are myths or not. Firstly, does English have a bigger vocabulary than other languages, i.e more words for stuff? And is English more idiomatic and irregular than other languages?

(I know they're vague questions and not very... scientific, for example you can't really define a word but humour me)