Thanks for your comment. I notice you did recieve my first attempt. I
didn't and that's why I posted it twice. Sorry for that.
----------
> Van: Christophe Grandsire <grandsir@...>
> Aan: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
> Onderwerp: Re: Gbwia, my language (LONG!)
> Datum: donderdag 23 september 1999 14:37
>
> R. Nierse wrote:
> >
> >
>
> I'll try to help as best as I can (even if African Tone languages
are
> not the languages I master the best :) ).
>
> > Gbwl`
> >
I see that the tones have mutilated the vowels! I have to mail it once
more, but then writing Gbwi`a` instead of Gbwl`
> > Phonology
> >
> > Consonants
> > Voiceless
> > p t k kp (little ingressive) 1 ' 2
> >
>
> Argh! A double-articulated consonnant! :)
>
I really loved them since the time I heard them first
> > Prenasalised
> > mb nd ny ng
> >
>
> What is 'ny'? Is it a stop?
ny is [nj]
>
> > Voiced
> > gb
> >
>
> So p, t and k have no voiced counterparts but prenasalised
> counterparts, and kp has no prenasalised counterpart but a voiced
> counterpart. Is there a reason for that?
Not really. I thought the mb, nd etc more exotic than just b, d. And I like
gb and not Ngb. So, there is no reason behind it other than my tast
>
> > Clicks
> > @ 3 c x q
> >
> > Nasals
> > m n (used with low fequency: in loanwords only?)
> >
>
> It seems strange that a language could have no nasal at all
except in
> loanwords, especially in a language that has prenasalised consonnants.
> Do you know any natlang precedent?
>
Not really, for me it just feels good. They just think it is difficult to
pronounce [b] [d] [g]. It's easier when they are prenasalised.
> > 3 @ can be pronounced as a bilabial click or as a labial-dental click.
BTW,
> > has anybody a suggestion for a better symbol?
> >
>
> As you have no bilabial or labio-dental fricative, why not use f
or v
> for it? They carry well the idea of labialisation. I know they carry
> also the idea of fricativization, but it would just be a bad habit to
> lose, and the use of @ as a click is stranger then what I propose (at
> least for me :) ).
The @ was inspired by the circle with the dot in the middle, representing
the bilabial click in Hottentot. So stupid that I didn't think od using f
or v . I'll stick to v.
>
> > Vowels
> > i, e, a, o, u.
> > All vowels can occur in low, high and falling tone.
> >
>
> Argh! Tones! :)
Yes, I think they are difficult, but that is what made me try. BTW, when I
learned Cameroonian Pidgin, I learned the tones quite quickly, because they
mimicked the intonation of English.
> >
> > Tone
> >
>
> Very interesting.
>
Thank you
> > Syllable structure
> > (m)(C)(w)V(')(V)
> > CVC is not allowed, except when final V disappears for syntactic
reason. If
> > that consonant is a voiceless stop, than that stop is pronounced
> > unreleased.
> > Note: I'm still doubting here. Should the minimal structure be CV (as I
> > originally had) or just V ( I accidentally made some syllables
beginning
> > with a vowel)?
> >
>
> If you really want to stick to CV as a minimal structure, why not
> allowing the glottal stop ' at the beginning of words? It would be
> simple then to add it to all your words beginning with a vowel. But a
> minimal structure V allowed at the beginning of words is just fine too.
>
I opt for the glottal stop. Thanks for the help
> > Grammar
> >
> > Gbwl` is inflecting a little. Both nouns and verbs can take affixes and
> > reduplication. Verbs can be active or stative, static verbs equalling
our
> > adjectives most of the time.
> > Gbwl` has a split-ergative construction.
> >
>
> Very interesting part about nouns. I never thought of somehting
like
> that. How long have you worked on your language?
>
Say since july. Last weeks I have been working harder on it.
> >
> > Verbs
> >
> > Dependent pronouns are inflected with prefixes an suffixes.
> >
> > Prefixes
> > 1. `-
> > 2. l-
> > 3. y- + last high tone of root becomes low, or in case of low
tone: low
> > tone vowel disappears.
This is wrong again. Now it looks even more complicated than it really is.
It should be:
1. a`-
2. i`-
3. u`-
> >
> > These prefixes also occur on nouns referencing the possessor. As verbal
> > prefixes they signal agreement with the transitive agent and with
> > intransitive subjects in noncompletive aspects. In the completive
aspect
> > intransitive subjects are marked by suffixes (see below), resulting in
a
> > split-ergative verb-agreement system.
> > The system is ergative in the completive aspect where transitive agents
are
> > marked by prefixes and intransitive subjects and transitive objects by
> > suffixes. The system in nominative in the noncompletive aspect where
> > subjects are marked by prefixes and objects are marked by suffixes.
> >
>
> This is a thing I love, just like changing word order depending
on
> tense or aspect. I should try that in a language of mine one day or
> another :) .
I stole this from Yucatec Maya
>
> > Suffixes
> > 1. -(x)h
> > 2. -(c)`
> > 3. -0
Should be:
1. -(x)e`
2. -(c)a`
3. -0
> > The brackets indicate that the consonants are used when the stem of the
> > noun ends in a vowel, i.e. when the 3rd person prefix is used.
> > Besides the above mentioned function, these dependent pronouns are
suffixed
> > to adjectives and nouns in stative constructions: gbb-xh 'I have
been
> > hungry'
> >
> > Examples:
> > hlwo-xh 'I have slept' (or: Ta hlwo-xh, or: ta
hlwo)
> > sleep-1
> >
> > `-hlwo 'I am sleeping' (or: m-ta `-hlwo, or m-ta hlwo)
> > 1-sleep
> >
> > y-hlel'-` 'He is seeing you' / 'He has seen you' (or: m-hle
(y-)hlel'-(`)
> > td)
> > 3-see-2
> >
> > I'm still figuring out if I want to use this rule: If (pro)noun is
used,
> > the afffix(es) is (are) optional.
> >
>
> Your affixes are short enough. Why not having mandatory
agreement? No
> need for optional affixes :) .
>
I'm still not sure what to do. Some way mandatory agreement is easier for
me, but on the other hand I like the fact that one can drop the affix once
it is clear from context what is the subject/object etc.. Maybe I want to
make it too complicated?
Thanks for your input Christophe!