Re: A dialogue in Old Urianian.

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

> quoting me:
>
>> 1)The short diphthongs /ei/ and /oi/ become /e/, and /eu/ and /ou/
>> become /o/.
>
> Does this mean that there are /e/~/i/ and /o/~/u/ ablauts in OU?
Well, I am not quite decided about this. These changes will make some
of the ablaut distinctions disappear, for example verbs that jump
from e- to o-grade in PIE will experience no jump in OU. And since
this disrupts the ablaut system a bit, the remains may disappear due
to analogy. But I am tempted to keep them.

>>       This also helps simplifying the verbal system. In the
>> longer corresponding diphthongs the second element is treated as a
>> semivowel in many environments, causing the first element to shorten
>> before consonants.
>> 2)In compositions following the -VC-o-C- pattern, where -o- is any
>> composition vowel, the composition vowel is ellipsed.
>> 3)Stress is shifted to initial syllables. Final short vowels are
>> dropped or reduced. Final long vowels become short. Short vowels in
>> the first syllable become long before single consonants.
>> 4)Final /m/ becomes /n/. An old change, so that an /m/ becoming final
>> after 3) is not affected.
>> 5)All unaspirated stops are aspirated.
>
> Do PIE *d etc. merge with *dh etc.?
No, the aspirated stops become fricatives, according to 6):

>> 6)/bh/ becomes /B/, written _v_, /dh/ becomes /D/, written _z_, and /
>> gh/ becomes /G/, written _h_.
>> 7)Unaspirated labiovelars become unaspirated stops, and will round a
>> following vowel. Thus /gw/ becomes /g/, written _q_, and /kw/
>> becomes /k/, written _c_. /gwh/ on the other hand becomes /w/,
>> written _w_, and will not round a following vowel.
>
> I assume that this happened before 5).  It would be nice to list the
> sound changes in chronological order.
In fact I think 5), 6) and 7) are simultaneous, or occurring in very
rapid sequence, as a result of a (possibly Uralic-speaking)
population imperfectly learning IE.

>> 8)Initial /s/ is lost before double consonants. Internal s is lost
>> before consonants, causing preceding short vowels to lengthen.
>> 9)Prepositions and some conjuctions and connective pronouns are
>> already lost.
>
> Looks good so far.  Only that I got the impression that you did not
> list the sound changes in order of occurence, which is misleading.
Except that 4) is earlier I'm not at all sure of the chronology of
the other changes.  I do suspect that 3) is slightly later than
5-6-7). 2) may be the most recent one of these changes. 1) may be
earlier or later than 5-6-7), I'm not sure. 9) is slightly after 3),
I think. 8) is relatively late, because more pre-consonantal /s/'es
are lost later in apparently an ongoing process. So maybe:
4---1-567-3-9--8-2.

BTW, one problem with the Uralic substrate hypothesis is that I think
the Urianians originally came from Scotland. It's only about 150 kms
of sea from the north of Scotland to the south of Uriania in my
conworld, and from the northernmost Orkneys it's only 50-60 kms. (The
Shetlands and Faroes don't exist in my conworld.) From the western
coast of Norway to eastern Uriania it's at least 300 kms, which is
rather long for a strong influx of early iron age sea voyagers. But
has Uralic ever been spoken in Scotland? I do think parts or all of
Norway once was Uralic speaking, and possibly the same is the case
with Denmark and maybe even the Netherlands.

LEF

Reply