> 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
there
> > 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).
in
> > 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
is
> >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
it's
> >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
helped(est)',
> _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!
[ http://oferty.onet.pl ]