Re: Strong Plurals?

From: "Roger Mills" <romilly@...>
Subject: Re: Strong Plurals?


> Very interesting.  Are there other, more regular(?) or "weak" plurals??
As
> you've stated it, these appear irregular and I suppose one just has to
learn
> them (like pax: pacis, nox:noctis etc).  But it's fertile ground for
> "internal reconstruction"--
A few nouns remain with the same root for the nominative singular and
plural, but most have a different root.  Other than perhaps one out of
twenty nouns that don't change root for the plural, they're all "strong".

Let's take a look at this internal reconstruction, it sounds interesting.

> For example:
> > atsa - asto, temu - tendo-- drop the final V, add /do/ with various
> expected adjustments/assimilations.  It could be /to/, but I suspect it's
> somehow related to the next---
It's actually from /to/, which becomes voiced against the /m/ of /temu/, the
/m/ assimilating to /n/, but you're on the right track.

> > chemu - chenda, kaza - kazda, kodu - kodra
> > ngide - ngidra, daja - dazhda, tachi - tashta, qrat - qrada-- same
V-drop,
> add /da/.  Apparently a voiceless fricative/affricate devoices the /d/,
> (atsa above, tachi here) a voiceless stop doesn't (qrat).  /d+d/ > dr
You've got the general idea with the voiced/voiceless assimilation, but not
/d+d/ > /dr/.

> omeiyh - onggha, qule - qulga, tume - tungga -- similar, /ga/, but I can't
> figure out what's happening in omeiyh (but see below* for 2nd thoughts)
>
> kaigu - kaigu, egash - egzhu-- I suspect /gu/ with, probably, some
> constraint on successive identical syllables, or on two /g/s...so
> **kaigu-gu, **eg0sh-gu > **egzh-gu > egzhu. I'd suspect /ga/ and /gu/ are
> somehow related, just as /do/,/da/
You're pretty close.  It's actually /egash/-/u/ > /egzhu/.  And yes, there
is a constraint on successive _similar_ syllables, not just identical ones.

> *(2nd thoughts) Perhaps omeiyh is behaving like egash, both are VaCVbC
forms
> where Vb drops (assuming -eiy- is functioning as a single V); then omeiyh
>
> **om-0-h-ga with metathesis of the h-g sequence and nasal assim.  > onggha
You've got it!  In fact, this sort of vowel dropping is present in _all_
words over two syllables.  /omeiyh/ + /a/ > /onggha/ proceeded exactly as
you describe.

> elghi - elghbo -- this stands alone.  Dissimilation of /do/ for some
> inexplicable reason??
No, that's not it.

> Since you know how these developed, I suppose you can account for them
(??)

Glad to.

We'll take "elghi - elghbo" as an example, and it should clear up the rest.

The word was once "elyhip - elyhipo".  A simple voicing of stops between
vowels took place, getting "elyhibo" in the plural.  Then the 2nd vowel
dropped out in words of three or more syllables, giving us "elyhip -
elyhbo".  Then there was an assimilation of voice in consonant clusters,
"elghip - elghbo".  And lastly, final stops disappeared in most cases.  So
the result is "elghi - elghbo".

Does that explain the mystery?  It's actually a lot of fun to read a text in
the original language, but use the pronunciations of the new language.  It's
a lot like reading French.