Re: 'Yemls Morphology
| From: | Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, July 9, 2001, 11:50 |
|---|
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:21:00 +0200, Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:
>En réponse à Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>:
>
>>
>> >| An expressed subject is marked by lengthening the last vowel
>> >| without changing the stress (see Vowel Lengthening), i.e. if the
>> >| subject was originally monosyllabic, it remains unstressed. If the
>> >| subject is qualified, the marker is added to the last qualifier. If
>> >| the last word is not the head of the last qualifier (or the subject
>> >| itself), a resumptive particle {?} is needed?
>> >
>> >Hmm, I have to read up on qualifiers before I try and answer that.
>> >Anybody?
>>
>> I hope somebody answers. That's one of the shakier parts of the
>> language.
>
>I don't understand very well your sentence ("If the last word is not the
>head of the last qualifier..."), but for what is worth, Basque only
>inflects the last word of a noun phrase. It's sometimes the head noun, but
>in Basque adjectives usually follow nouns, and thus it's quite frequent
>that it's an adjective that is inflected instead of the head noun of the
>noun phrase.
It seems you understood it well enough, although I hope to rewrite that
explanation. I'm glad to find that out about Basque, so that 'Yemls isn't
too unnatural.
>>
>> I like that. I vaguely recall starting a language years ago that used
>> sibilant and nasal prefixes and infixes, but I'm not sure if it was
>> for aspect, voice, or what. 'Yemls will have secondary aspects such as
>> frequentive, conative, continuative (term ?), but I haven't decided on
>> the specific prefixes yet. There will be other aspectual auxiliaries as
>> well.
>>
>
>My Moten uses -s- as an infix, but also -d-, -f- and -v- :) . It has also
>the suffixes -i and -n. And if you look at my page on the part about
>Moten, you'll see a full page devoted only to the sound changes due to the
>presence of those affixes :))) .
I'll have to take a look.
>BTW, you should add the phonemic or phonetic realisations of your affixes.
I forgot to add it. Here's a quick rundown (phonetic, but not precise):
first, each by itself:
-q [k] implicit mood
-r [l] general tense
-T [tO] present tense
-f [f] past tense
-m [m] future tense
-a [N] resultive aspect
-x [S] causative aspect
now the combinations:
-aq [Nk]
-ar [gUl]
-af [gUf]
-am [gUm]
-xq [Sk], but is [SIk] for the instantive aspect
-xr [SIl]
-xT [StO]
-xf [SIf]
-xm [SIm]
Not shown: the final dropped vowel may sometimes show up in pronunciation.
The [l] may be a retroflex lateral when the vowel is dropped.
>I didn't keep your scheme of realisation and your language is quite
>difficult to read actually :) . In fact, I'd like that to check whether
>you kept on with the tongue-in-cheek humour that characterizes 'Yemls.
Not generally in the affixes, but there will be some in the vocabulary, I'm
sure.
Jeff
Reply