Re: word derivation in sabyuka (some principles)

En réponse à julien eychenne <eychenne.j@...>:

>
> So did I : I could not answer yesterday ;).
>
Well, I'm answering now, but I won't be able to read the next reply :(( : I'm
going nomail tonight for reasons of trip to France (my family hasn't seen me
for a year and a half, it's time to repair that).

> I'm not sure for the names of those vocalic degrees (in french réduit,
> plein and long, borrowed from indo-european terminology), but they
> represent some phonological common features.  For instance
>   - weak V + stronger vowel =  the first one become a consonant (/@/
> originally turned to /?/, then /h/ and now zero)
>   - strong V + any V : the second element of the diphtongue
> consonantize
> (respectively 'ah', 'ey' and 'ov')
>   - medium V + strong V : an epenthetic 'n' is inserted (/Sa+ou+ni/
> 'to
> be+PROSP+1SG' > /Sanouni/ 'xanôni' "I will/would be", where PROSP is
> "prospective" and 1SG "first person singular" )
>
What about if a weak vowel meets another weak vowel? Or that a medium vowel
meets another medium vowel? Those cases are not explained here :(( . Other than
that, I find it a neat system.

>
> Actually 'r' is flapped or trilled 'r'. I have a true problem in
> pronouncing 'r',
> so that my flapped 'r' is a retroflex one (no problem with sanskrit
> LOL). I cannot
> do a proper alveolar/dental 'r' (that's why I gave up studying spanish
> and I now study linguistics ;)).
Have you tried the sentence "el perro de San Roque no tiene rabo"? I remember
repeating it over and over again until I managed to pronounce the trilled r
correctly :)) . And when you manage (which always happens. If you can make a
French [d], you can make a trilled r, just put the tongue a little more back
and let it flap :))) ), it feels ununderstandable why you didn't manage before
(believe me, that's how I reacted :)) ).

 And 'sr', though not impossible, is
> really hard for me (but easier than 'sxrawbo' in esperanto, the
> hardest
> word in the world !!!).
Then never try Georgian!!! :))) . To me, "sxrauxbo" is quite easy to pronounce.
But then, I don't even have a problem with the /kv/ cluster! :))

So, I didn't need that sound, but my girlfriend
> loves it :(.
>
Hehe, the influence of the loved ones :))) .

> Yes, you're right I give you the consonantic system :
> 'p' = /p/
> 't' = /t/
> 'z' = /t^s/
> 'tl' = /t^l/
> 'c' = /t^S/
> 'k' = /k/
> 'q' = /k^w/
> 'b' = /b/
> 'd' = /d/
> 'j' = /d^Z/
> 'm' = /m/
> 'n' = /n/
> 'f' = /f/
> 'th' = /T/
> 's' = /s/
> 'x' = /S/
Ha? /t_s/, /t_S/, /d_Z/, /f/, /T/, /s/ and /S/, but no /z/ or /Z/? Well, not
that it's unnaturalistic, but I'd at least see /z/ in. Because I'm just
wondering whether you can have a lonely voiced affricate when you don't even
have a voiced fricative.

Apart from that, I like the presence of the lateral affricate and the rounded
velar :)) .

> 'h' = /h/ for sabyajà (but pronounced as [x]) : merged from *h and *?
> 'v' = /v\/ as in sanskrit (there is a lot of variations depending on
> dialets and position (post-consonantic, intervocalic)).
Niceness.

>
> So, I think you know understand 'rr' is really undoable for me (and I
> do
> swear I did my best to pronounce it !!!).
>
Not enough pal :)) . Believe me, the trill is really not a difficult sound. It
just needs enough training :)) .

>
> That's exactly what I'm looking for, naturalisticity.:) And keep in
> mind
> this is standard sabyukà, but there will be dialects where /rr/ is a
> legal geminate ;).
>
LOL. Your girlfriend's dialect maybe? :))))

> It depends, I saw both notations, as the vowel is the syllable
> nucleus.
Yep, but if you're using the IPA or an ASCII transcription of it, then you're
quite obliged to use the notation of the stress in front of the syllable
itself, because that's how the IPA does :)) .

> But you're right, yours is better ;). However, what I meant was
> ['sabiru] *instead of* ['saby@ru] (and not *for*), as I was refering
> to
> the pronounciation of the word. Thank you to have noticed it :).
>
You're welcome. But it was not really a mistake, I thought that it was what you
meant, but I was in a correcting mood and when I'm there it's difficult to
stop :(( . Sorry.

>
> Yes, that's a true mistake. Excuse me. The problem is that the glosses
> are not good : I should have either written "the one who knows" or
> "know+human-reference-marker", but not a mixed system. I'll use the
> second one. Thanks again.
>
You're welcome. I was especially thinking of if you want to participate in a
conlang relay later, and that I happen to be the one just after you, I wouldn't
want to annoy you every thirty seconds because I cannot make head or tail of
your glosses ;)))) .

>
> I do love this feature :))) It came up as I was wondering what
> 'sabyukà'
> could mean in the language (I had the word but not its meaning yet).
>
Hehe, I am probably gonna do that with Maggel as well. Except that in that case
it will probably be a worn down phrase rather than a Euskara-like
structure :))) .

>
> The inanimate reference marker (-kà) is a suffix intended to
> nominalize
> the root meaning.
> But nominal roots (like 'urà' "water") can give pairs such as :
> 'urà' = "water"
> 'urkà' (ur+kà) = "lake", "sea".("water+RM", "that which +(is) water" )
>
> '-jà' is an animate reference marker, with most of times an agentive
> meaning. A conqueror is a "smakjà" ['smag.d^Z@] ("want+RM", "the one
> who
> wants").
>
Nice derivations. They are quit naturalistic, as they are not *too*
straighforward :)) . I like that (but everyone on the list knows that I'm a
lover of twisthood :))) ).

>
> So I corrected it, hope it's a little bit clearer.
>
Yep, very much :) . And the added explanations are interesting too :) .

>
> This is a really good question. Actually, -ek- will be the only still
> productive (but decreasing) infix. I'll have fixed forms with other
> infixes, with more irregularities as they will be more anciant.
>
Neat. So -ek- is still semi-productive. Interesting. I wonder how it would be
applied to new verbs...

>
> Once again, thank you. Your comments were really straightforward and
> helpful. A lot of things seem evident for me (of course, I have it all
> in mind ) whereas they are not (glosses for example).
>
Hehe, I have the same problem. And with the chaos that is my creative mind,
it's even difficult to simplify things even *after* getting advice :))))) .

By the way, don't worry about the fact that I'm going nomail, I'll read your
reply from the archives when I come back home next week (and maybe give a reply
then, thus ressucitating a probably dead thread ;))))) ).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Reply