Re: TERMS: Umlaut-Ablaut
|From:||Eric Christopherson <raccoon@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, December 16, 1999, 2:19|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU]On
> Behalf Of Herman Miller
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 9:43 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG
> Subject: Re: TERMS: Umlaut-Ablaut
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 17:57:03 +0100, Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
> >>I'm thinking that
> >>having i- and a-umlaut may be more likely than having, say,
> >>i- and u-umlaut, since those could confuse roots even more
> >>(what is */mys/, << /misu/ or << /musi/)?
> >Well, if you introduced a series of _unrounded_ back vowels you
> could have
> >both. /mys/ is more likely to be derived from /musi/, and /mMs/
> coul well
> >be from /misu/. The lips keep in their original position - i.e.
> rounded or
> >unrounded, but the tongue has moved to the position of the lost
> final vowel.
> That's exactly how Jarrda developed from Proto-Raccoon: e.g., "nuni" (to
> study) > "nuen" [nyn], "ninu" (group) > "neun" [nMn].
I'm doing the same thing in Dhakrathat, but I'm not sure if diphthongs
should work the same way, or different. I.e., I know I want u+i to become
fronted u /y/, just as *muni would become *myn; but I'm not sure if i+u
should also become /y/, or /M/ instead, like *minu > *mMn. My esthetics seem
to lean to making them both front rounded, but I'm not sure if I should make
diphthongs behave differently from umlaut. Does that make any sense? <grin>