Re: New page on Kijeb morphology
|From:||Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, March 25, 2006, 21:57|
Jörg Rhiemeier skrev:
> A nice work! The morphology is very regular, which, however, isn't
> bad, especially not in a reconstructed protolanguage. There are many
> agglutinating natlangs with similarly regular morphologies. I like
Maybe I should prefix every single Kijeb form with an asterisk,
making it an entirely reconstructed protolanguage. My idea was/is
that it is partially attested in a deficient syllabic script, however.
Alex Fink skrev:
> Yes, a very nice regular morphology, using your phonological processes to
> good effect. Makes the apparent irregularities (like _igyu_, which I guess
> is to avoid an _iy_ sequence) all the more tantalizing.
Yes _igyu_, is to avoid an _iy_ sequence. I have detailed the rules for
these changes in the now renamed sandhi section.
> I notice the rational gender only exists in the plural. What is it used
> for? (mixed groups of masculine and feminine referents?)
Yes. That will be pointed out in the syntax section yet to come.
> Which levels does Kijeb inverse marking distinguish in the nominal
> hierarchy? To my knowledge it's not usual for verbs in natlangs to
> distinguish every single level; _the_ nominal hierarchy is more like the
> total collection of level boundaries found in natlangs.
Yes, that seems right. I have changed it to apply only between animate
> If in pre-Kijeb _xw_, or the contrast _xw : f_, had a low functional load,
> so that there were very few minimal pairs distinguished by this contrast,
> methinks it would be especially likely that _xw_ would collapse into _f_.
> If any undesirable homonyms did arise replacements could always be found.
Glad you agree!
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)