Re: Update on me: Elliott (LONG)
| From: | Elliott Lash <al260@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, September 29, 2001, 22:18 |
|---|
Aniye Christophe:
> En réponse à Elliott Lash <AL260@...>:
>
> [snip the interesting grammar bits]
>
> >
> > TO Those of you who have read thus far, I applaud you. Please send along
> > comments. :)
> >
>
> Wow! Interesting. Moten uses also mandatory auxiliaries for conjugation of
> verbs (except the two auxiliaries atom: to be and agem: to have, verbs only
> have infinitive and participle forms). What I'm wondering is why the indicative
> is periphrastic while the subjunctive is synthetic? wouldn't it be more natural
> to be the contrary? Or is the subjunctive particular in this language that it
> takes synthetic endings?
I don't think it's more natural either way...as someone already pointed out.
But anyway, in the context of this language, there is a perfectly rational
explanation. The subjunctive is descended from the future form of the
"Classical" language. The indicative on the other hand is descended from the
periphrastic present of the "Classical language"
Thus:
Em krvulshu "I walk" originally meant "I am walking"
Krolkham "I walk"-subj. originally meant "I will walk"
> Also, have you considered to make your present and past participles into
> imperfect and perfect participles, that you could use with both tenses of
> auxiliaries, thus with imperfect participle, you would make present and past
> tenses, while with perfect participle you woulf make present perfect and past
> perfect tenses. Just a thought of course.
Interesting idea, but... perhaps I'll stick to the current ones and then add another
dimmension with a perfect participle for perfect tenses. Or I might take your
idea...back to the drawing board. :)
>
> Is the spelling regular? vowels seems to change pronunciation without real
> rules, especially 'e' which seems to mark /e/, /i/ and /I/, or 'a' which seems
> to mark both /a/ /e/ and /O/. and the ending 'al' pronounced /O/ and 'el'
> pronounced /Iv/ in 'Jsel'? In a word, what's with the spelling?
Let's look at the vowels one vowel at a time.
-----
THE VOWEL E
E has many different allophones according to place. And yes you are right, some
of the transcription I used in my previous email were...incorrect. I have
remedied that.
at the beginning of the word it is mostly [I]. However, in a few words...or more
specifically, certain forms, it is pronounced [i] in this same position.
Examples:
ergvol "knight" [Irgvov]
eshgir "he went" [iSgir]
It will be seen that [i] appears when /E/ is the prefix indicating past in some
verbs. Originally however this /E/ was also pronounce [I]. It was only under
the influence of Jsm "I was" /iz@m/ (<*[@js@m]) that the sound changed.
The other time that /E/ -> at the beginning of the word (and also in general) when
it is followed by /s, n, m/
Examples:
Em /im/
Es /is/
shtrujen /Sdrujin/ "the books"
MIDDLE
Most of the time in the middle of the words /E/ is [I], except when followed by a
cluster when /E/ is [E].
Examples:
krvolkhet "He reads"-subj. [krvoxIt]
krvolkhench "We read"-subj. [krvoxEntS]
After /j/ the /E/ -> [i].
Example:
bjezchal /biztSO/ "to hear"
vjece /vitsI/ "men"
Before the cluster [rts] and I think one more, /E/ -> [i]
gerce "walked" (past participle) [girtsI]
At the end of the word, /E/ is consistenly [i].
-----------------
THE VOWEL A
The vowel /a/ is almost always [a] except for in a few circumstances. It's easier
to address those exceptions than account for where it is [a].
In the context of j__ /a/ -> [{]
Example:
bjaezchu "hearing" (present participle) [bj{ztSu]
In the context of __j /a/ -> [e] and the /j/ disapears.
Example:
dvajpju "looking" (present participle) [dvepju]
----
When /a/ precedes /l/ several possibilities occur, depending on where /l/ is in the word.
When /l/ appears before consonants then /a/ -> [a] and the /l/ dissapears.
Example:
krvalshu "reading" (present participle) [krvaSu]
When /l/ appears before vowels, then /a/ -> [o] and the /l/ -> [v] (<*[w])
Examples:
shnalal "to know" [SnovO]
When /l/ appears at the end of the word, the /a/ and /l/ coellesce to form /O/.
Example:
shnalal "to know" [SnovO]
_______________________________
That's basically it for the vowels that you specifically mentioned, if you
want me to describe what's going on for the others I will. Also, if you think
any of this allophones are not appropriate in the environments presented,
please let me know.
I really like the idea of an orthography that doesn't really fit with the
pronunciation, I've just never really tried it. :)
Elliott