Re: Major overhaul of Mungayod
|From:||Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, September 3, 2000, 19:45|
Dan Seriff wrote:
> While I was conjugating various verbs, I discovered that Mungayod has
> geminate consonants! In a verb like /IN/ (to name), the perfect becomes
> /In:nik/, and /OYt/ (to do), becomes /OYt:tik/. It usually only happens
> in single-syllable verbs. But, now I have to come up with some way to
> indicate that in native writing.
Is it predictable? That is, is there a form that /Inik/ which /In:ik/
could be confused with? If not, why bother marking geminates?
> Now, a pertinent question: is it too terribly weird to have 3 classes of
> verbs distinguished by endings in a consonant, front vowel, and back
Not at all. Latin had 4 classes distinguished by stems ending in -a:,
-e:, -e, and -i:. I have no doubt that natlangs exist with a
distinction similar to yours. Various sound-changes could derive three
classes from an earlier invariant inflectional system. Another close
example: Japanese has two classes of verbs, marked by ones that end in a
consonant in their stem (in the infinitive, marked by adding -u, IIRC,
since only n can be word-final) and ones that end in a vowel.
"Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and
I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor