>From: Daniel Andreasson <noldo@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
>Subject: Re: yet another new lang sketch (sorry)
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:36:03 +0100
>
>Jennifer Barefoot wrote:
>
> > Phonology
>
>Nice and simple. Looks like a sister language to Asiteya.
>
> > Any suggestions on this? I think pitch-accent is really nifty but I
>don't
> > have any experience with it.
>
>Well, being a native speaker of a language that has pitch-accent
>(i.e. Swedish), I must say it sure is nifty. But your system is
>a bit hard to follow. Could you provide us with examples?
>
>Let's see if I understand it correctly:
>
>Final vowels of >/=3 syllable words have low accent.
>Second vowel have high accent.
>
>___/\______
> \
>kunilasapa'a
>
>Shouldn't it rather be with a high pitch at the end?:
Why? I meant the first diagram, but the third is reasonable too. perhaps
it's the dialect of another island.
>
>Or do you mean:
> _______
>___/ \
>kunilasapa'a
>
>
>What about words with exactly three syllables, like 'amasi'?
>Which rule apply to them? the '>3-rule' or the '<3-rule'?
>Or neither? Is it:
the greater than/equal to rule:
>____
> \
>amasi
>
>
>Third rule, 'amat' should be:
>
>__/
>amat
>
>right?
yes.
>
>Regarding the Native American touch. Not knowing anything
>about them, aren't they tone languages rather than pitch
>accent languages?
>
>Verbs:
>
> > aspect infixes - fall after the initial consonant of the verb
> >
> > telic -ix-
>
>What's 'telic'?
Carried out completely.
>
>Nouns:
>
>I like that you have gender, and the 'softening' of the
>final consonant in the plural is cool.
>
> > One of the few sentences in this language thus far:
> > ani al puyan musinaan ni'i al tisuuyaa
> > I.rel the woman-acc see.durative-past at the doorway-loc
> > I used to see the woman in the doorway.
>
>What about the syntax?
>The basic word order seems to be SOV, but does that
>change to show the tense, like Asiteya does?
Yes, it's SOV. No switching to show tense, sorry.
>
>Could you clarify the case system? Is it a mixed
>ergative/accusative system? How come you use the
>relative case in your example sentence instead of
>the nominative? Does it have something to do with
>the verb 'to see', with the 'subject' being an
>experiencer, or what?
Mixed ergative/accustive, and the ergative form happens to be the same as
the genitive form. The subject of this sentence is in the relative case
because it has a direct object. Something like "I see" (an intransitive)
would just be "aminaani" with a personal prefix.
>
> > Jennifer Barefoot
>
>Daniel Andreasson
>
jennifer
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com