Re: First thoughts on Prevli or Pervil

Jörg Rhiemeier/Ph.D wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> >
> > Roger Mills wrote:
> > >
> > > Personal pronouns:
> > > 1st sg. kan ~gna
> > > 2nd sg. mil ~bli
> > > 3rd sg. --- or zok ~sko ("z" is probably /dz/, phonology not yet
> > > totally
> > > figured out...)
> > > 1pl. kant ~kanta
> > > 2pl. milt ~miltä
> > > 3pl. zet ~zeta
> >
> > Which factor conditions these alternations?
>
>
> Mr. Mills can speak for himself, but I took the first of each of these
> to be the independent form and the second to be the clitic form.
>
That's one possibility... Another is that the metathesized forms will be the
oblique/case forms, depending on the phonological shape of the ending-- so
to some extent it can be phonologically conditioned. It's still somewhat up
in the air... all I can say for sure is that it's inspired by Leti &
relatives, languages of Eastern Indonesia.

I think verb forms will probably have 3 possible forms, e.g.--

semit - semti - esmit _perhaps_ for realis - irrealis - (something else)--
and even a possible 4th form, smiti.  More research is needed.

The metathesis (so far) will only affect /CVCVC/ (underlying CVCVCV ?)forms,
not CVCV-- and the CVC numerals are invariant

Incidentally, an error or typo: I think _2p+1s imlikna_ ought to be
_imlignä_ perhaps [Im(b)liN:&]

And as Jörg commented: "One can still see where these forms come from,
though the image appears to be somewhat blurred by sound changes." Right.