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
>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