Re: Dropping from the root

Take a look at this explanation I've been working at for my conlang: could
this work?

For a tri-consonantal root *MANS, in the ancestral language, there were two
distinct forms playing around: *MAN (or short form) and *MANS (or long
form). Some inflected forms required the former, some others the latter. In
Senquarian this alternation has been preserved (in some cases even extended)
and it can still be seen. In the present tense, for exemple, we have:

 mans (1s), mansän (1p), manseit (2p)

where the element s is present. But also:

 mannut (2s), man (3s), mannen (3p)

where s is absent.

The inclusion or the exclusion of the final consonant of the root in an
inflected form was originally caused by phonetic developments, but it has
reached a purely morphological function. Man (3s) was indeed originated by a
previous *mans with zero ending (the bare root); since final clusters were
not tolerated, *mans lost its final vowel. The new form quickly spread over
the entire conjugation. The form mannut (2s) was created agglutinating a
pronominal clitic to distinguish it from man (3s), as mannen (3p) is from
man + hen, where hen meant 'those, they'.

*Historical development of the system*

Originally we had:

1 s Mans- the root + an unstressed personal ending
                                (a vowel which later fell)
2 s Man-s the root + an infix
1 p Mans- the root + a stressed personal ending
2 p Mans- the root + a stressed personal ending
3 s/p Man(s) the bare root - notice that the final consonant fell

The infix present in 2s caused the last consonant of the root, an s in final
position, to fall, and the form generated by this phonological development
happened to resemble the one of the 3rd person (encoding both singular and
plural meanings). The two forms merged (analogy), generating this system:

1 s Mans the long root
2 s Man the short root
1 p Mans- the long root + a stressed personal ending
2 p Mans- the long root + a stressed personal ending
3 s/p Man the short root

Meanwhile, the VSO order typical of the language and the quite common use of
cliticised pronouns caused the collapse of these pronouns with the short
root in 2s and 3p. The system now looks like the one described in the
introductory passage:

1 s Mans the long root
2 s Man- the short root + a cliticised pronoun
3 s Man the short root
1 p Mans- the long root + a stressed personal ending
2 p Mans- the long root + a stressed personal ending
3 s/p Man- the short root + a cliticised pronoun

What do you think?

Onto the other part of the message...

> Suffixes are always added to the non-truncated form.
Pronominal clitics, too? Or are these agglutinated in front of the root?

> I once read a claim by
> a morphologist that truncated forms can never serve as the base for
further
> affixation. But then again, I've even heard a morphologist claim that
> truncation is never a regular process, which is clearly false. (She
> retracted her statement after a me and a friend who works on Pima with me
> jumped down her throat.)
:-)

Luca

Reply