Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Two Questions for OurTongue

From:Rob Haden <magwich78@...>
Date:Monday, July 7, 2003, 15:12
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:52:22 +0200, Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:

>Not bad :) . Your "wa" looks just like the topic marker in Japanese, and >has the same meaning. Was it intentional?
Not really, although Patrick Ryan derives the Japanese topic marker also from Proto-Language *fha. There is evidence of such a marker in many languages, including Proto-Indo-European.
>Well, the only problem here is the change of word order. For the formant to >be -u, you need to put "wa" after the verb. This would be difficult to >explain. However, what could happen is that in the original construction >you give: "meî wa dapá", the "wa" stops being felt in association with the >pronoun, but with the following verb instead. This is very realistic. In >this case, it would lead to the formation of a formant u-, i.e. a prefix.
One of the constraints for OurTongue is that it uses only suffixation. My inspiration for the mediopassive formant -u is the Uralic languages, which have exactly the same formant for mediopassive verbs. Perhaps in Pre-Proto-Uralic, the "wa" particle modified the verb instead of the (pro)noun? If Pre-OT did the same thing, it would give: Meî dapá wa. 'I hit concerning.' > 'I am hit'? Are these semantics realistic? Also, however, the Proto-Uralic -u formant was supposedly a reflexive formant at first, which then became a mediopassive formant. - Rob