Re: derivation help?

Grandsire, C.A. wrote:

> >     OI.  ana'al (anaal) 'breath' > A. an
> >         -loss of finals as normal
> >                  But what about that long a? Only short vowels are lost normally.
> > Maybe an earlier rule that shortens long vowels in the final, nonacc syllable? Of
> > course, all non-initial syll are nonaccented, so...
> >
>
>         I think that's pretty likely. I think Latin lost phonemic distinction
> between long and short vowels that way: all unaccented vowels became
> short and all accented vowels became long, and then the length was not
> phonemic anymore.
>
     Thanks! I _think_ that this would work perfectly for where I'm trying to go. I'll
have to test a couple of words with long stress in acc and unacc syllables, and the same
for words with short vowels in either place.

> >     OI. bendacht 'blessing' > A. bennaeth or benna'ath (long a)
> >         - ch /X/ aspirates following plosive
> >         - voiceless aspirates fricativized (/th/>/T/)
> >         - vocalization of /X/ (as in Old English)
>
>         What do you mean by vocalisation? disappearance?
    I mean that the /X/ becomes a vowel, probably via a voiced version of /X/ (have no
idea what the ascii ipa would be /G/?). This would speak for the -naeth version, but as
someone else pointed out, the original /X/ is broad, not slender, thus tending towards the
-nnaath end. So confusing!

>
>
> >         - diphthongization of V (a>ae) OR lengthening of V (a>aa/a)
> >         which makes more sense in terms of treatment of that vowel?
>
>         Maybe lengthening of the vowel accompagning the disappearence of /X/...
    This seems more logical to me, too.

>  and how come the
> > finals weren't lost? Which derivation do you like more?
> >
>         Simply because /X/ was still there when the rule of lost of final
> consonnant applied, and this rule didn't apply when there was a
> consonnant cluster.
>
    Okay! Thanks!! This solves that bit!! But...(and there's always one of those) won't
that keep some clusters (i.e. ones without the velar) around? I'm tending towards no final
clusters. Maybe I should work out some example without the velar and see where they take
me. Nasals lost and compensatory lengthening, or maybe a stage of final cluster
simplification in a later period.

> >     OI. scethach 'emetic' > A. syetha/sietha (same problem as above)
> >          -sc>sy/#_
> >         -loss of final C
> >     why no loss of final V?
> >
>         Analogy? Or the /X/ disappeared making the vowel long, so the vowel
> didn't disappear, and after another shortening of unaccented vowels
> occurred.
    This would world (the second one). It looks like I need to much more particular with
how I define these lost V, not so much a loss as a shortening, it's just that shortening a
short vowel shortens it into nothing! (say that 5 times fast! ;)

>         Not all the words in Old Irish are dissyllabic I suppose. And also you
> didn't take into account factors like analogy, creation of new words,
> derivations that take place of the underived word, shifts in meanings,
> etc... And a few homophones are not that bad! :) .
    True...and I do like homophones. Just not 60! ;) And I've only been presenting
nominative forms - maybe changes would appear - okay, they would definitely show up - in
oblique forms. Haven't even touched on compounding yet!

> You can have
> appearance of epenthetic vowels for clarity also, or other things. Not
> all changes are purely related to sound. I don't think sound change is
> blind (that's to say, unaware of PoS and things like that). And of
> course don't forget the powerful tool which is analogy.
>
    Thanks for the ideas. I'll note them down for future use!

    Merci beaucoup!

    Clint