Re: Strong Plurals?

Joseph Fatula wrote:

> More or less accidentally, I derived a language from one of my conlangs
that
> has some interesting plural formations.
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"--

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---

> 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

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/

*(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

elghi - elghbo -- this stands alone.  Dissimilation of /do/ for some
inexplicable reason??

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

Reply