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?
> 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. :)
What I like the most are the diphthongs 9Y and ow mixed
with all the other monophthongs. Very cool.
> /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.
daniel
--
<> BEKÄMPA SPRÅKDÖDEN <> daniel.andreasson@telia.com <>
<> SKAPA ETT SPRÅK <> Daniel Andreasson <>