Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Whoha, lotsa a replies suddenly. Thanks for the confirmations of natlang
> precedent! I'll be responding to Meghean-specific points below in my usual
> incoherent fashion ...
>
>
>>Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was reviewing Meghean phonlogy earlier today, and it occured to me that a
>>>series of nasalized fricatives [B~ D~ G~] would be quite the thing to make
>>>would-be learners pull their hair out. They'd occure as initial mutations
>>
>>of
>>
>>>nasal stops, which as an added bonus means the definite form would be less
>>>dysfunctional (indef and def would then only coalesce for words beginning
>>
>>in /s l r j w i e/).
>
>
> BP:
>
>>Way to go! And I still think you should have an /s/ > /h/ mutation!
>
>
> Ray:
>
>>But that could surely be still achieved?
>
>
> I'm considering /s/>/h/ mutation. On the plus side, it would yield some totally
> hysterical mutations like _seomas_ ['Somas] "creation" > _sheomas_ ['hjomas]
> "the creation" and _sem_ [Sem] "tree" > _seshem_ [Se'hem]. On the minus side,
> it might make [s] a rarer and [h] a commoner sound than I really want.
You could have a distinction between formerly geminate and former
simple *s as you apparently have for nasals.
> It occurs to me right know that it would imply the existence of words like
> _tash_ [tah], which I'd have every excuse to pluralize as _tans_ [tans].
So make it *tass@! IMO it can be plural _tans_ anyway!
'Tis called analogy, y'know! :)
> That's
> probably to much to pass up along with _seshem_ [Se'hem].
What would thàt mean?
>
> I've considered having [r\] as the mutated ("fricativized") version of [r], and
> even of "anti-mutating" [l] in non-mutating positions to [K\], but I do not see
> any reason the definite form _shouldn't_ be dysfunctional in some cases. In any
> case, it's hard to see what it could _do_ to [i e j w], at least as long as I
> don't allow [j] before front vowels, which isn't gonna happen.
If /r/ is trilled, you can have both /r/ and /l/ become [4] and [l\]
when lenited -- which IMO would be much cooler. If you can't pronounce
a proper [l\] you can always cheat with good ol' Swedish /l\`]! ;)
OTOH I agree about the non-lenition of [i e j w] (unless [j w]
go to zero!)
>
>
>
>>>Words in which the little monsters would occur include _mhedh_ [B~eD] "the
>>
>>elf",
>>
>>>_nhagh_ [D~aG] "the dwarf"*, and _nhoch_ [G~ox] "the day". By parallel to
>>
>>the
>>
>>>development of oral stops, one'd also expect them to occur medially in some
>>>words, but I think I'll stomp that out with a bit of merging and leveling.
>
>
> BP:
>
>>Why?
>
>
> Ray:
>
>>Aw!! Keep 'em.
>
>
> I suppose the chief reason not to keep 'em is sheer laziness; introducing them
> initially really only amounts to change the pronunciation of written 'mh',
> 'nh', 'ñh', but having them everywhere will force me to look thru the entire
> lexicon (OK, it's not very big yet) and decide for each intervocalic and medial
> nasal whether it descends from an ancestral geminate,
So toss a coin. In fact I've actually used that method on occasion
(tho not followed the outcome slavishly if I didn't like the result.
> in which case it would
> persist, or from a solitary nasal, in which case it would turn into a nasalized
> fricative. I'd also have to convince myself of a more intricate reason not to
> have pl an>aD~, which I don't want to happen. Deriving it from a geminate is
> the obvious solution, but, since it's supposed to be "the same" element as the
> infixed -n- in plurals like _ñoch_>_ñoñc_, that's perhaps rather odd.
Why? The infixed -nn- may have simplified before the following
obstruent prior to lenition.
>
> The really bright side of having them finally is that it would suggest the
> existence of a plural formation class of the type _gamh_>_gam_. I like the
> thought of orthographic plural by truncation.
Brilliant!
>
> But I suppose you've convinced me to have both s>h mutations and medial/final
> nasalized fricatives. Which means I need to redecorate the phonology section of
> my Introduction to Meghean by flamethrower.
That's life. I've revised Sohlob (the lang) by flamethrower
several times, including throwing out most of the vocab because
I changed the phonotactics in primitive roots!
> This means, of course, that the relay texts I've done in Meghean would become
> partly obsolete - off the top of my head, _mememe_ "our mother" would become
> _memhemhe_ or _memheme_ depending on whether I decide the last 'm' comes from
> ancestral /m/ or /m:/. Oh well, such is life. I might post updated versions
> somewhere if I get round to it.
So? The relay text I did in Slvanjec this summer is already obsolete!
>
> It's worth noting that even entirely regular inflections can get pretty hairy by
> now; eg _ñoch_ [Nox] "day", _ñhoiñc_ [G~ojNk] "of the days". Neither onset not
> nucleus nor coda is left intact!
Groovy! Similarity of historically or systemically
related forms is of course no imperative unless yóu
make it one, and la langue mechante doesn't seem the
right place for that!
>
> Andreas
>
>
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)