Re: Biwa (was: YAC: ...)

Daniel wabbe:

>Carlos skrev:
>
> > Even if I'm not assigning this language to any culture yet,
> > it is designed as it has a history.  Part of this history
> > would be that it was originally an active language that
> > became isolating, but pronouns still reflects the origin as
> > active language with a split ergative.
>
>Do you know how this split happened? What was the original
>reason for splitting intransitive predicates? Control? Or
>was it animacy then too?
Well, I can only guess, but probably inanimates were unlikely
to be subjects and were always marked in those positions.

Probably it was control at the beginning, but when Biwa became
more and more isolating variation were only noticed in the
pronouns which only had a degree of animate.

Posible evolution:
TV: transitive verb
AV: active intransitive verb.
PV: pasive intransitive verb.
M: modal
A: animate
   Aa: animate agentive
   Ap: animate pacientive
I: inanimate
   Ia: inanimate agentive
   Ip: inanimate pacientive

  VSO w/ cases    VSO w/o cases  subject fronting
  TV M Aa Ip   -> TV Aa M Ip   -> Aa TV M Ip
  TV M Aa Ap   -> TV Aa M Ap   -> Aa TV M Ap
* TV M Ia Ap   -> TV Ia M Ap   -> Ia TV M Ap
* TV M Ia Ip   -> TV Ia M Ip   -> Ia TV M Ip
  AV M Aa      -> AV Aa M      -> Aa AV M
* AV M Ia      -> AV Ia M      -> Ia AV M
  PV M Ap      -> PV M Ap      -> Ap PV M
  PV M Ip      -> PV M Ip      -> Ip PV M

Where * are less used (inanimates rarely are subjects in transitive or
active verbs).

When you read in terms of subject an object:
  Aa is always subject.
  Ap is object in intransitive,
     but only subject in pasive intransitive.
  Ia is almost only subject in transitive
  Ip is the usual subject in intransitives.

When the active/pasive verb distinction disapears, both \Aa AV M\
and \Ap AV M\ would evolve into \Aa V M\, analogous to transitive:
\Aa V M O\.  While \Ia AV M\ and \Ip PV M\ would evolve in \Ip V M\
following the most common pattern, but Ia reminds Ia in transitive
verbs.

Likely?

> > Probably Old Biwa had long and short vowels:
> >   i i:   y y:  u u:
> >    e e:  2 2:  o o:
> >          a a:
> > but those vowels had different evolution:
> >   i -> 1     i: -> i:  -> i
> >   y -> y     y: -> 2:H -> 9Y
> >   e -> E     e: -> e:  -> e
> >   2 -> 9     2: -> @\: -> @
> >   a -> V     a: -> A:  -> A
> >   o -> O     o: -> o:w -> ow
> >   u -> U     u: -> }:  -> }
>
>This evolution reminds me of the Swedish vowel changes.
>From Old Nordic to Rune Swedish. That is from a 5 vowel
>system to a 9 vowel system with length and nasalization
>features. But Biwa does this rather differently. Very
>neat! The differences between A and O and @ and 9 are
>minimal to my ear though when they are all short. Though
>I guess I shouldn't say anything with the Swedish /i/ -
>/y/ - /{/ - /2/ distinction. :)
Well: /y/ - /}/ - /u/ series isn't easy.  I was thinking in
changing stressed /@/ into /3/ or /@\/, still central vowels but
tenser than schwa and unrounded... if I could just tell the
difference.  (IPA mirrowed epsilon or IPA mirrowed e,
respectively)

>What I like the most are the diphthongs 9Y and ow mixed
>with all the other monophthongs. Very cool.
I could guess that some dialects of Biwa would have [ej] for /e/
and a few other diphtongs.

> > /p/, /t/, /k/ vs /b/, /d/, /g/ are actually fortis vs
> > lenis and not voiceless vs voiced.
>
>But the difference isn't that big, is it? Although, I can
>imagine it makes a difference for sound changes.
Well, it is not a big difference.
A lenis stop could be read, in Biwa, as an unaspirated stop that
would be voiced or devoiced but always released and never
aspirated.
A fortis stop could be a voiceless stop that would be aspirated,
unaspirated or unreleased, but would always be voiceless.

If I said voiceless/voiced distinction, it would mean that /d/
is always voiced and /t/ is always voiceless.  Or if I said
aspirated/unaspirated, /t/ is always aspirated and /d/ is always
unaspirated.  Fortis/lenis is vague enough to describe how Biwa
works.  Besides, lenis are shorter than fortis, lengthening
previous vowel:

padde /pVd-@/ [p_hV:dd@]
patte /pVt-@/ [p_hVt't_h@]
padse /pVds@/ [p_hV:ts@]
patse /pVts@/ [p_hVt'ts@]
padme /pVdn@/ [p_hV:dn@]
patme /pVtn@/ [p_hVt'n_0@]

where [t'] means /t/ with no audiable release.

>daniel
>
>--
><> BEKÄMPA SPRÅKDÖDEN <> daniel.andreasson@t... <>
><>    SKAPA ETT SPRÅK <> Daniel Andreasson      <>
Jag tycker faktiskt om på den här satsen.
Svenska är ju ett snyggt språk, tycker jag.

_________________________________________________________________________
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.