Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

CONLANG Digest - 14 Nov 2001 to 15 Nov 2001 (#2001-320)

From:Łukasz Korczewski <lucasso@...>
Date:Sunday, November 18, 2001, 23:40
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:20:57 +0100 > From: Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> > Subject: Re: germanic conlang x2 > > > 2. i'd like to use lack-tense vowel opposition. it's clear for me that
> > will be this pairs: (SAMPA again): > > [I][i] [Y][y] [U][u] > > [E][e] [9][2] [O][o] > > Hmm, I never thought [E], [9] and [O] were lax. But I think the > naming sounds nice in that system.
well, i think i've seen such a treating in a book on german grammar but i don't own it, so i can only trust my tired and tricky memory and it can be a subconsious "equating" by analogy. but names are not so important.
> > (it's like in german) > > Almost, yes. > > German has the opposition short vs. long. Then you get the pairs you > showed with the `tense' phonemes being long. (So in German, > additional to the quality difference, the quantity is different > reflected by the naming convention.)
right, i'm aware of this, but i like the idea of the loss of the quantity in favour of the quality and i pay attention only to this side of the matter. and so i did comparing my system of phonemes with the one of german. [...]
> The /E:/ is an exception in the otherwise nice system. (However, > there is a tendency to drop exactly that phoneme nowadays, yielding a > very regular system then. I think the tendency comes from the north > and moves further south.)
do you mean [E:] -> [e:]? as for my conlang i considered also the idea of a merger of tense a's with a level higher phonemes resulting in: [a]-[E] [A]-[O] (<-[V]) or [{]-[E] [a]-[O] or sth like this but untill there's almost no vocab i'm afraid of too many homophones [...]
> > but i'm not sure what to do about a's (a, and it's fronted equivalent).
> > german it's smth like this (if i understood it well): > > [E](with no tack-tense opposition?) [a][A] > > Well, almost, yes. The [a]-[A:] opposition is found in coastal > dialects in the north only (e.g. in Hamburg) for /a/-/a:/. They > almost have [{]-[A:] there and possibly even use [{] for /6/:
interesting, my Langenscheidts Taschenwoerterbuch (that's my only current source with IPA) has definitively [a] when short and in diphtongs and [A] when long or halflong *************************************************************
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:46:22 -0500 > From: Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...> > Subject: Re: germanic conlang >
> >1. i'm lacking with any systematized collection of PG words and guessing
> >not what i like the most. can anyone help me? oh, here's a good example - > >"to help". in english it's a weak verb but in other germanic languages
> >strong. in PG it was also strong, but what were it's basic forms (i mean > >perfect and past participle).
of course it should be imperfect (aka preterite)! perfect is a compound tense that utilizes past participle!
> 'Help' seems to be a 3rd class verb at least in Proto-West-G. I'm not > sure about Scandinavian and Gothic. > > In PWG, forms are grouped in a slightly different way than you said: > > (1) Present stem (present indic. and subj., imper., inf., pres. pple): > > help-, e. g. Old High German "short" inf. _hel(p)fan_ '(to) help'. > > (2) Preterite 1st and 3rd sg., indicative: > > halp-, e. g. Old High German _hal(p)f_ '(I) helped'. > > (3) Preterite 2nd sg., 1-3 pl. indicative, preterite subj.: > > hulp-, e. g. OHG _hul(p)fum_ 'we helped', _hul(p)fi_ 'you=thou
> _hul(p)fî_ '(I) would have helped' > > (4) Past participle - the PWG vowel must be same as in (3) if the latter > is different from (2): > > hulp-, e. g. OHG _gi-hol(p)fan_ '(which is) helped' (with vowel affected > by "breaking").
and the later form of preterite: holp (as it was mentioned by john) is an analogy to past participle, right?
> However, Gothic doesn't follow exactly the same pattern, so PG condition > is not so obvious. I guess you could assume some analogical levelling for > your conlang, like in all modern (nat)langs.
i'll probably try with great analogies between pret. and p.p.
> >is there anyone with good knowledge of PG and > >the historical evolution of germanic (esp. west germanic) languages? > > It depends on what you call "good". I'm aware of a few points where no > final "good knowledge" seems possible...
ok. now i know whom to ask and i'll return to the mentioned conlang as soon as i get some free time (at friday i think). ^_^ BTW. English lost the auxilary verb "to be" in perfect. Did any other germanic language also simpify in any way the system of two auxilary verbs in this tense? -- Lukasz K. -- Tego nie znajdziesz w żadnym sklepie! [ ]


Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>