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

En réponse à Elliott Lash <erelion12@...>:

> Hello All!
>
>    Silindion returns along with its parent languages
> and the whole shebang! I don't know how I got off of
> the Conlang list originally, but I do know that I
> haven't been here since December. I rejoined a week
> ago, and have been lurking ever since while preparing
> some material for presentation.
>
Welcome back then!

>
>    Silindion derives from the Silic branch of
> Silinestic. It's sister languages are North Silic,
> Essamea, and South Silic. The sister branch of Silic
> is Nindic. Both Nindic and Silic are Silinestic
> languages, which along with Sulindori, form the
> Western Nestean languages. The Nestean languages are
> divided into the Eastern group, the Mendic or Mountain
> group and the Western group, which is the only group
> that I've developed.
>
Just one word: Wow! :)))

>
> 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 :) .

>       U is <u> that looks like the upside down
>         omega in IPA. It's pronounced like the <u>
>         in <put>, at least in my dialect.
>       & is <ash>
>
> Question 1: How viable a vowel system is that?
>
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 :) .

>
> 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.

> 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.

>
> The resultant system of simple vowels is:
>    i:               u:
>     I,I:   i-    U,U:
>        e       o
>           a,a:
>
> @ only appears in @j and @w.
>
> Question 2: How believable is the development?
I find it strange that lax vowels keep a long/short distinction when the only
other letter that has one is a, and when other cardinal vowels have none. I'd
rather expect, as I said, I: and U: to move up as short high vowels, restoring
a long-short distinction on all three corners of the vowel inventory, making it
into:

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 :)) ).

>
> 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.

> e    >   @
> o    >   @
As I said, I doubt they would do that in stressed syllables.

>
> 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 I said, I do have some doubts about e and o going to schwa in all positions.
I'd say they'd rather merge with lowering I and U in stressed positions and go
to E and O there. Your end result wouldn't change at all, but your
reconstructions would need a little tweaking.

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).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.

Reply