used as a verb in Alduin's famous, "zu'u unslaad! zu'u nis oblaan!". If this is also a noun, it should have a note
Word Revision Thread
 paarthurnax Administrator June 27, 2014 |
hiith Added note that it can be a verb also. |
by paarthurnax
June 27, 2014
 Foduiiz June 27, 2014 |
Synonyms "bike" and "push-bike" |
by Foduiiz
June 27, 2014
Synonyms "bike" and "push-bike"
|
paarthurnax Administrator June 27, 2014 |
Foduiiz Added "bike," not sure "push-bike" is necessary with 'bike." |
by paarthurnax
June 27, 2014
|
paarthurnax Administrator June 28, 2014 |
hiith Yes, under the possibility that all adjectives are also adverbs. Thoughts on that? |
by paarthurnax
June 28, 2014
hiithcould also be "finally"? If so, then "at last" could be another synonym
Yes, under the possibility that all adjectives are also adverbs. Thoughts on that?
|
paarthurnax Administrator June 29, 2014 |
@Bansfir, edited to baansir @Senkjoor, edited to sonziik. @Yostvah, I think this one's okay as far as three consonant clusters go. Anyhow, I changed it to yostrah. Still three consonants but works better. @Fokmir, edited to forokir. |
by paarthurnax
June 29, 2014
@Bansfir, edited to baansir
@Senkjoor, edited to sonziik.
@Yostvah, I think this one's okay as far as three consonant clusters go. Anyhow, I changed it to yostrah. Still three consonants but works better.
@Fokmir, edited to forokir.
|
paarthurnax Administrator June 29, 2014 |
One sweeping change I just made is changing the suffix "-aht" to "-aat." "Ah" shouldn't be used before a consonant like so. Words that previously used "-aht" now use "-aat," for example "Honaat," "Brudaat," and "Wahlaat." |
by paarthurnax
June 29, 2014
One sweeping change I just made is changing the suffix "-aht" to "-aat." "Ah" shouldn't be used before a consonant like so. Words that previously used "-aht" now use "-aat," for example "Honaat," "Brudaat," and "Wahlaat."
 hiith June 29, 2014 |
paarthurnax I don't see what the problem is here. There are plenty of casees where "ah" is used before a consonant. "Ahtiid", "fahliil", "gahvon", "jeydahk", "nahkip", the list goes on. Can you further explain this? |
by hiith
June 29, 2014
paarthurnax
I don't see what the problem is here. There are plenty of casees where "ah" is used before a consonant. "Ahtiid", "fahliil", "gahvon", "jeydahk", "nahkip", the list goes on. Can you further explain this?
|
paarthurnax Administrator June 29, 2014 |
hiithpaarthurnax My bad, I really didn't explan enough. Properly, ah should not be used mid-syllable. This is the main distinction between ah and aa. Ah falls at the end of syllables and aa is used in the middle of syllables. In the examples ahtiid, fahliil, gahvon, and nahkip, ah falls at the end of the syllable where it gives the opportunity to make /x/. It also helps divide syllables in some consistent manner. We know that ahtiid is ah+tiid, fahliil is fah+liil, gah+von, nah+kip, etc. These words could have been spelled like aatiid, faaliil, gaavon, or naakip, but this would have broken convention. Nahkip "feed" is a great example because it is likely naak+kip "eat-food," but it was changed to nahkip because of how it's pronounced: nah+kip rather than naak+ip. Jeydahk, ahrk, and another word, nahl, are examples of atypical spelling. At least in nahl it serves to distinguish it from naal "by." This is getting pretty deep into speculation, but an internal explanation for jeydahk might be that it was originally jeydah, but /x/ became so prominently pronounced at the end of the word that it eventually became jeydahk. Anyway, a summary: a suffix that causes -aht would be improper since it uses ah in the way that aa should be used. -aht and -aat would ultimately be pronounced the same but -aat stays in line with convention. |
by paarthurnax
June 29, 2014
hiithpaarthurnaxI don't see what the problem is here. There are plenty of casees where "ah" is used before a consonant. "Ahtiid", "fahliil", "gahvon", "jeydahk", "nahkip", the list goes on. Can you further explain this?
My bad, I really didn't explan enough.
Properly, ah should not be used mid-syllable. This is the main distinction between ah and aa. Ah falls at the end of syllables and aa is used in the middle of syllables. In the examples ahtiid, fahliil, gahvon, and nahkip, ah falls at the end of the syllable where it gives the opportunity to make /x/.
It also helps divide syllables in some consistent manner. We know that ahtiid is ah+tiid, fahliil is fah+liil, gah+von, nah+kip, etc. These words could have been spelled like aatiid, faaliil, gaavon, or naakip, but this would have broken convention. Nahkip "feed" is a great example because it is likely naak+kip "eat-food," but it was changed to nahkip because of how it's pronounced: nah+kip rather than naak+ip.
Jeydahk, ahrk, and another word, nahl, are examples of atypical spelling. At least in nahl it serves to distinguish it from naal "by." This is getting pretty deep into speculation, but an internal explanation for jeydahk might be that it was originally jeydah, but /x/ became so prominently pronounced at the end of the word that it eventually became jeydahk.
Anyway, a summary: a suffix that causes -aht would be improper since it uses ah in the way that aa should be used. -aht and -aat would ultimately be pronounced the same but -aat stays in line with convention.
This thread is more than 6 months old and is no longer open to new posts. If you have a topic you want to discuss, consider starting a new thread. Contact the administrator for assistance if you are the author of this thread.
