Verb Conjugations in a New Project
|From:||Ben Poplawski <thebassplayer@...>|
|Date:||Monday, August 9, 2004, 4:09|
I'm working on a new conlang (I know--should finish all the ones I already
have) with the phonology influenced by Arabic and Somali. At the present
I've formed an incomplete paradigm for one verb.
Stress accent placed on the final syllable of the word.
For the ease of transliteration, [X\] will be written as <X> (I'd use
underlined h, but I don't know how well the list renders HTML tags).
3p sg 3p pl
2p sg 2p pl
1p sg 1p pl
citation form: habn "s/he/it eats"
PR IMPF IND
PR PF IND
PT IMPF IND
PT PF IND
PR IMPF SUB
PR PF SUB
PT IMPF SUB
PT PF SUB
PR IMPF OPT
PR PF OPT
PT IMPF OPT
PT PF OPT
The -tum- affix is an idea-borrowing from Spanish, with its vosotros and
nosotros forms. -tum- presently does not have a set independent meaning, but
it's use is similar--"others", "persons", etc.
This is not quite the same as the Semitic triconsonantal roots--that vowel
"a" is part of the word "to eat" just as much as the consonants. But notice
that it is elided when intersyllabic followed by a strong syllable.
The du- prefix in the past perfect is a bit mysterious. My original
intention was to have it as an "irregular" derivation of the paradigm,
expressly for the past perfect, but it shows the lengthening of the infix
vowel that the present perfect shows and it has spread to all the moods
(incomplete), of which both could be products of the analogy. Or, more OOC
and more realistically, I got lazy with the cut-and-paste.
The conjugation is superbly regular--a bad sign. I can't think of how to mix
it up at the moment, and I don't know if I want to: the idea started as a
language for the philosopher class of a Plato's Republic-based utopia.
More ideas on that, but it delves into philosophy and some numerology
variant. There are three phonemic vowels, /a i u/. The high vowels are
realized as [e o] when trapped in hiatus within the same syllable as an
uvular. These are still marked as /i u/, if marked at all--ideas for the
orthography are based on Semitic. An epenthetic vowel [@] does occur (or
svarabhakti vowel, as I recently learned), but is definitely not indicated
in the orthography.
Okay... getting to the point, the philosophers have assigned values to the
vowels. /a/ is the lowest vowel, lowest like those of the class ruled by
bodily appetites (laborers, craftsmen, artists). Roots with /a/ tend to have
more earthly associations. /i/ is the front high vowel, representing those
ruled by the spirited element (police, military). Roots with /i/ tend to
have very active associations. And /u/ is representative of those ruled by
reason, the philosopher class, high, rounded, and closest to the seat of
thought. Roots with /u/ tend to have more stative and abstract associations.
And the uvular /q/ is thought of as the debaser sound as it drags down [i u]
to [e o]. The verb "to pollute" would most likely include /q/.
Additionally, the cases are marked by these associations. /-a/ is the
patient ending, /-i/ the agent ending, and /-u/ the associative ending. So,
about accusative, nominative, genitive right there.
FINALLY, A QUESTION OF ROMANIZATION:
I think that if [?] indicates the glottal stop, than the inverted question
mark can indicate the voiced pharyngeal fricative: [?\] <¿>. I
don't know if this is an original idea, but I like it. For my reason: in
Semitic, the glottal stop is represented by a semicircle opened to the left
while the voiced pharyngeal is represented by a semicircle opened to the
right. Extend that arrangement to ASCII and you get [?] and <¿>.
A wonderful day to you all,
From a man that was bearded last year, is, however, straight and
right-handed (though not necessarily dextrous), and who descends from
pretty-darn-near-close to Lithuania (or was it Latvia?),