Re: Lahabic Verbs II: Person and Number

>Message: 7
>    Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:27:25 -0400
>    From: Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>
>Subject: Re: Lahabic Verbs II: Person and Number
>
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:39:24 CDT, Anthony M. Miles
><theophilus88@...> wrote:
>
> >Please tell me if I'm breaking some basic tendency here.
><...>
>
>I am not sure about the 'levellings'; it would be nice to have some
>additional explanation (mixing the moods or something).
1) Combinations of person and number fall together, not moods.
2) The aorist and the perfect would be identical in the 1st and 2nd person
dual and plural, but nowhere else. Thus the short vowel of the perfect is
restored by analogy to disambiguate. Example:
Root: tyaien- 'see'
Aorist:
tyaieneima'+z > tyaieneima'z 'I glimpse'
tyaieneima'+z+R > tyaieneima'ra 'we glimpse'
tyaieneima'+r+R > tyaieneima'rra 'you (pl) glimpse'
Perfective (unreformed):
tyaieneima+z > tyaieneimaz 'I examined'
tyaieneima+z+R > tyaieneima'ra 'we examined'
tyaieneima+r+R > tyaieneima'rra 'you (pl) examined'
Perfective (reformed):
tyaieneimaz 'I examined'
tyaieneimara 'we examined'
tyaieneimarra 'you (pl) examined'
> >I wanted to continue the dual in some form, but it tends to vanish. It
> >seemed to me that the dual could change into an exclusive because dual =
> >two > _only_ two > _only_ undetermined number > exclusive. Does this
> >development make sense?
>
>I kinda recall the opposite development (I forget where): 'we two'
>   > 'both of us' > 'both you and me' > 'we, including you'.
What happened to the original 'we'? Did it become 'we, excluding you'?
>
> >Also, the stress patterns for verbs changed as follows
> >(P/A=penultimate/antipenultimate):
> >long-vowel:  PPPAAAAAA -> PPPPPPPPP
> >short-vowel: AAAAAAAAA -> AAAAAAPPP
>
>I'm afraid I don't understand this notation. Do you list the forms in
>the order you use for the person/number paradigms?
Yes, with the exception that the animate plurals were omitted. The pattern
above is interesting because it changes to an almost opposite pattern. I
already discuseed the one difference it made in stress.
>
><...>
> >Oh, and one final question.What does bh stand for if voiced consonants
>can't
> >be aspirated?
I didn't mean to imply that _I_ wanted to rule out voiceless consonants, but
I remember reading somewhere that they didn't exist as stops in IE or
Sanskrit.
Clearly this is crucial issue for native Lahabic speakers.
>
>I am not sure I know enough about the phonological inventory. You could
>allow for a cluster like [b]+[h], or distinguish up to three voiced
>labial fricatives: [w] vs. [B] (beta) vs. [v].
Early Lahabic has non-nasal sonants, /s/, [l], [r], /w/, [j], and [h].
/w/ is close to [B], and [v] and [w] are probably allophones of /w/.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.