Re: Biwa (was: YAC: ...)
| From: | jesse stephen bangs <jaspax@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 31, 2000, 22:20 |
|---|
> [snip]
> Well, probably a combination of mass changing and isolated changes.
> Previous pattern could suggest that all short vowels became a little
> laxer, while long vowels would remind tense. Then some long vowels
> would have diphthongised.
>
> The pattern could have been:
> i -> I -> 1 i: -> i: -> i
> 2 -> Y -> y 2: -> 2: -> 2:H -> 9Y
> e -> E e: -> e: -> e
> 3 -> 9 3: -> 3: -> @
> a -> @ -> V a: -> a: -> A: -> A
> o -> O o: -> o: -> o:w -> ow
> } -> U }: -> }: -> }
Problem here is that I'm not sure which IPA symbols are [2], [9], and
[H]. This design, however, makes more sense that the last. The phoneme
/}/ is very highly marked in the worlds languages and so probably wouldn't
arise spontaneously, so it's better to posit that the original language
had it as well. (Or suppose some sort of general backing or unrounding
rule, but you don't seem to have that.)
> Well. I know the product: Modern Biwa. I'm just trying to figure
> out Old Biwa, and these are just theories.
>
> Another theory could suggest:
> i -> I / ij I -> 1, ij -> i
> y -> Y / 2H 2H -> 9Y
> e -> E / ej ej -> e
> 2 -> 9 / ew ew -> @
> a -> a / A@, a -> V, A@ -> A
> o -> O / ow
> u -> U / }w }w -> }
>
> where the first change where a split between close and open syllables, then
> most diphthongs were lost and would never have been a long stage.
This would suggest that [i 9Y e @ A }] would only occur in open syllables
in Modern Biwa, or at least syllables reconstructed as originally
open. Is this true?
>
> -- Carlos Th
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>