Re: Syllabic consonants (was: Re: Beek)

Isidora Zamora sikyal:

> >>For even more fun, you can apply the same thing to high vowels. I.e., have
> >>a word like /uma/, which when prefixed with /emi/ becomes [e.miw.ma],
> >>rather than [e.mi.u.ma]. For kicks, throw some high dissimilation in
> >>there, so that /emi + uma/ is actually [e.mew.ma]. Whee!
> >
> >I'll have to see what I can do with your recommendations.
>
> I have considered what I can do with your recommendations.  The first thing
> that I can do is to officially induct <uma> into my conlang as the verb "to
> die."  (I think the stress will be on the first syllable, but I haven't
> finalized my decision just yet.)
Glad to have made my contribution :).

> The second thing that I think I will do (because it seems more natural to
> me -- and I have less trouble pronouncing the result) is, in /emi-uma/,
> instead of turning the /u/ into a glide, I will turn the /i/ into one.  So
> we have the form <emyuma> 'to not die' (or 'not to die' for those who will
> not split their infinitives)
Is it the first member of a sequence of high vowels that gets turned into
a glide, or is it always /i/. We've established that /iu/ turns to
[ju]--now does /ui/ turn to [wi] or [uj]. I think making it [wi] is more
consistent, but either is possible.

> >What would you recommend when making the verb <mta> into a pres. act. part.
> >by suffixing -eis.  There are too many vowels together in /mta-eis/.  One
> >or more of them's got to go.  (BTW, the <ei> is a diphthong.)  Maybe
> ><mtais> would be reasonable?
>
> I've thought of another resonable alternative.  /mta-eis/ could come out as
> either <mtais> or <mtayeis> (with the <y> being a jod.)  Perhaps these two
> are variations between dialects?
The dialectic difference is always nice. I'm somewhat partial to <mtais>,
myself.

> Now, if someone will *please* double-check my semantics here...The language
> has a nominalizing suffix -m such that you have the pairs of words: <tovl>
> 'to instruct' and <tovlm> 'instruction' and <khange> 'to know' and
> <khangem> 'knowledge.'  Am I within the right semantic range if I say that
> adding -m to the verb <uma> 'to die' should give a noun <umam> with the
> meaning of 'death'?
If that's what you want. The semantics are certainly fine. In natlangs,
such derivational processes are generally somewhat flexible in the
meanings they assign to derivatives, so <umam> is a very plausible word
for "death".

"Death" is a common concept, though, so while it's often related to "die",
the etymology may be synchronically obscure--as with English. Romance
languages are similar.


--
Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/blog

Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground
of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our
interpersonal relationship."

And Jesus said, "What?"

Replies