Re: New page on Kijeb morphology

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
 > it.

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
and inanimate.

> 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!

> Alex
>
>

--
/BP 8^)>
--
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
    means "no"!

                            (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)