Jessi Stefen Bangs wabbe:
> > 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, in SAMPA:
2: rounded mid-closed frontal vowel, IPA o with slash
9: rounded mid-open frontal vowel, IPA oe ligature
H: labiopalatal approximant, IPA inverse h
> > 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?
Yes, it is true. Add [ow] to the list.
-- Carlos Th