Re: First thoughts on Prevli or Pervil
|From:||Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>|
|Date:||Friday, September 9, 2005, 20:42|
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.