Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Proto-Languages Question (reply to rob haden)

From:Elliott Lash <erelion12@...>
Date:Monday, September 27, 2004, 16:28
--- Rob Haden <magwich78@...> wrote:

> >"He gave sharp swords and broad shields to the > hero" > > I think it should be "heroes," since you gloss the > word as a plural below.
Yes, you're right.
> >Hinession: > >Nâ v’asan n’herchein nechver ha rhesein cas penos > da > >lâroeu > > It seems like Hinession underwent a second shift in > vocabulary.
Well, only a bit. The "new words" are: nechver "sharp" It's from Northern Nindic: nechber "painful" ha "and" From N. Nindic hai/ha "also, in addition" penos "towards" From N. Nindic peno/penos "across, over towards" da "the" From Archaic N. Nindic ta/da "the, that, that one" All the rest is derived from the words you see in the following Classical Nindic example, with minor sound changes and grammatical changes. asan "giving" from N. Nindic athan "giving", gerund of ethi "to give", seen in "ethed" rhesein "shields" from N. Nindic rhedd "shields" with an analogical -ein plural ending, which became more used in Hinession.
> >Cl. Nindic: > >Ethed naw herchín ethaen ‘bo rhedd cath noth i > laerwy > > It seems that both Cl. Nindic and Hinession actually > preserve accusative *- > n. With Cl. Nindic 'rhedd', perhaps the development > was *rhredn > *rhedd. > Does 'naw'/'nâ' mean "he"?
The accusative was definitely lost. Classic Nindic "rhedd" is pronounced /rED/, the <dd> representing a fricative derived by intervocalic lenition of the stop. If the final "n" of the accusative was preserved, the final vowel would have been preserved: *rodajn > rodi:n > ro"Di:n > rEDi: > rEDi <reddi> *rodaj > rodi: > ro"Di > rED <redd> The -ein of Hinession <rhesein> comes from the Classic Nindic -ín plural ending which was greatly extended in Hinession and later Classic Nindic. It is from *-ajna, a Common Nindic collective formation.
> >Silindion: > >Anelë kiréin sampi rondeimma kasta i lairohyanu > > I don't see how 'rondeimma' can be from > *rodnoin-naj.
Well, that's because it's not. <rondeimma> is a Silindion inovation that did not exist in Silic. It is the commitative case plural of <rondo> It is derived from the accusative *rodnoin plus the clitic -ma "with". It's only used when two nouns are being linked.
> >Essamea: > >Nelsi kiree sikkie nee rendee kasta sinjänu läirejä > > How can -kk- arise from -pn-?
It can't. <sikkie> is a new word, derived from Silic *sikkije "fast" Basically like, "fast witted, sharp witted, sharp, smart" etc. etc. *sapni would become **sämpe in Essamea.
> >Nindic: > >*anta-ti: (o:) sjarski-j itt-ani: emopod roda-j > kasta > >give-pst (he) sword-pl bite-prp. and shield-pl > broad > > > >nods je la:jros-ja > >unto the hero-pl > > If the original genitive was *-di, perhaps 'emopod' > preserves it?
No, these Nindic and Silic sentences show no sound changes whatsoever. The sound changes happen a bit after these examples I guess. They're kind of like idealized versions of what Nindic and Silic would look like, if they had preserved everything about the proto-language's phonology. *emopod "and" comes from *eme + *opod "on top, in addition" etc. The> dative preposition 'nods' seems to be able to be
> analyzed as *nod-s. > Presumably, this metathesized to *nost giving > Classical Nindic 'noth'.
Something like this. You're essentially correct. *nods comes from *nod + s, "s" being the zero-grade of *es "in" The
> word for "sword" seems to contain an additional -ski > element.
Yes, *syarski is the root *SYAR* "strike" with an instrument derivative suffix.
> > One correspondence between Silic and Nindic seems to > be S si(:) : N ti(:), > implying assibilation in Silic.
The problem with that analyses being that, as I said before, the Silic and Nindic sentences I gave were only changed in regard to vocab and grammar not sound. -ti: and -si: occur both in Silic and Nindic. The distribution seems to originally have been -si: after consonant roots, -ti: after vowel roots. This may have been one morphem at one time, but that time was pre-Proto-Silinestic, not after it's break up. Another one is S ki
> : N sja, implying that > earlier *ki became palatalized with lowering and > centralizing of vowel > quality, giving *kja, and then eventually became > *sja (cf. Indo-Aryan from > Indo-European).
I dont know where you're seeing this one. It's possible that N -ani: in
> 'ittani:' and S -ni (?) > in 'sapni' are related.
Yes, the -ni: is an adjectival derivation. In Nindic ittani: it is added to a verbal noun in -a, giving a sort of participle. Which exists in Silic as well as -ani:. The -ni of *sapni ought to be long. Here it is added to a nominal root, with no real verbal significance, hence it's just a regular adjective. Perhaps the roots *itt-
> (source for geminate?) and > *sap- mean "bite" and "cut," respectively.
Right...well, *itt means "prick" and *sap is related to thorns and what not. c.f. Silindion <finto> "pine-tree" *sp-it-mo From a zero-vowel grade variant of *sap. The
> biggest problem is actually > the verb: Nindic points to *anta-, while Silic > points to *nel-. I'm not > sure how these two can be related, besides both > containing an /n/.
They're probably related distantly, in some pre-Proto-Silinestic way. Alot of roots in Silinestic seem to have related sounds and semantics. *bur "weave" *buk "spider" *nol "cold" *not "snow" and others that I can't remember right now. Anyways.. the roots were: *anta "give" *ne(l) "give" Probably from a Primitive Nestic root: *@N@ or something. Anyways, thanks for your analyses. I enjoyed it. Elliott __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around