Re: Silindion Returns (slightly long, but interesting I hope)

> > First I'll present the Proto-Nestean Vowels
> >  i,i:                  u,u:
> >    I,I:      i-       U,U:
> >      E,E:    @      ),):
> >             &,&:
> >
> > note: i- is the central vowel barred-i.
> >       ) is open-o
>
> Why not simply calling it O, as in X-SAMPA? :)) You
> have E anyway :)
Right, well...it's O then :)

>> Well, I wouldn't put & so much in the middle of the
> system, since it's
> definitely a front vowel, somewhat fronter than a.
> Actually, I have a bit of
> difficulty with & and &:. Because of the fact that
> the vowel inventory is quite
> full and of the presence of E with the absence of
> low vowels, I'd think & and
> &: would have turned into a and a: nearly
> immediately. I don't think such a
> system would have lasted very long, which is not
> necessarily bad :) .

Okay, so it's good....it'll just have to move really
fast to other things, no problems there :)

> > Simple Vowels:
> > i,i: >  @j, ej
>
> It looks quite strange. Does stress have an effect?
> I wouldn't expect
> unstressed short vowels to diphtongize.
> > u,u: >  @w, ow
>
> Same here.
Hm...you know...that makes more sense. I think they'd
stay /i/ and /u/ then....or maybe go to /I/ and /U/ or
would that not make sense?

> > I,I: >  I, I:
> > i-   >   I
> > U,U: >  U, U:
>
> From what I see of &: becoming a, E: becoming e and
> O: becoming o, I'd expect
> long lax vowels to become tense somehow. So I'd
> expect I: to go to i or e, and
> U: to go to u or o. Remember: sounds are gregarious,
> they like to get together,
> and they don't like to be separated. So sound
> changes are most likely when they
> happen to categories of sounds rather than
> independently to each sound. It also
> makes the changes of i into I: and u into U: in
> diphtongues rather strange.
>
> i,i:             u,u:
>    I     i-    U
>      e       o
>         a,a:
>
> I think it's slightly more stable than the vowel
> system you proposed (which
> answers to your question 3 :)) ).
Could it be that the Western System as I proposed it
was just a transistion system which quickly became
something the one that you proposed? In that case, I
can keep mine and just add in an extra step saying
that later on things changed into what you had.


> > Finally, the Western Vowels developed into the
> > Silinestic vowels. This development is presented
> > below:
> >
> > i:   >   i:
> > u:   >   u:
> > I,I: >   E, i
> > i-   >   @
> > U,U: >   ), u
>
> Well, I see you have in fact the same idea as me. I
> just would have thought
> that I: and U: would have moved earlier, which would
> have also freed I and U to
> move.
> However, the I > E and U > O is going a bit too far,
> unless you go through a
> phase where I > e and U > o. It would happen after
> the original e and o turned
> to schwa (something I wouldn't except except in
> unstressed syllables though) so
> that no confusion would be possible and the new e
> and o would then open further
> on a second step.
Actually, what I originally had was that /I/ and /U/
goes to /e/ and /o/ in Silinestic which then become
/E/ and /O/ in Silindion...I think this is just a
matter of forgetting to put in my intermediate
branch...I basically had the same idea as you I guess.

> > e    >   @
> > o    >   @
>
> As I said, I doubt they would do that in stressed
> syllables.
My idea was that /e/ and /o/ would both become a
fronted round vowel like /2/ or something in all
positions, which would then become /i-/ or soemthing
like that. Which would then become /@/ Does that make
sense? In any event, /e/ and /o/ must become /@/
everywhere...hm...I hope it'll work.


> > The simple vowel system for Silinestic therefore,
> is
> > thus:
> >   i,i:            u,u:
> >     e:           o:
> >       E    @    )
> >          a, a:
> >
> > Question 4: Does the development between Western
> and
> > Silinestic make sense?
> As for the vowel system of Silinestic, I have
> nothing to say about it. It looks
> rather stable to me, with E and O which can be
> considered to be the short forms
> of e: and o: (basically, it was the phonetic
> situation in Latin, which had
> primarily a phonemic length distinction, but
> phonetically a quality distinction
> was added, and among the mid vowels the distinction
> was as you did, i.e. the
> short vowels were lower than the long ones).
>
Well...as I said, the short forms of /e:/ and /o:/
ought to be /e/ and /o/ in Silinestic, /E/ and /O/
arrising later.

Elliott

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Reply