Re: Lahabic Verbs II: Person and Number

> >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).
I lost my full reply a moment ago, so I will be brief.
If there is no levelling, then the 1st and 2nd person dual and plural of the
aorist (basic vowel a:) and perfective ( basic vowel a) are identical. This
is bad, since they are two of the three main aspects.
> >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 1st plural form, then?
>
> >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, except I omitted the animate 3rd person dual and plural.
>
><...>
> >Oh, and one final question.What does bh stand for if voiced consonants
>can't
> >be aspirated? 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].
I _want_ an aspirated voiced stop rather the [b]+[h], but I remember reading
that such a beast didn't exist.

_________________________________________________________________________
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.