Re: New Pseudo-Dravidian Conlang
|From:||Rob Haden <magwich78@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, July 7, 2005, 19:40|
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:21:40 -0700, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...>
>2. Rhotic + stop => lengthened vowel + stop; e.g. *karkka => kaakka. If
>there's already a long vowel, the rhotic becomes /u/; e.g.
>Just a quick question: What would happen to *kuurkka? Would
>it become /kuuukka/? Ditto with *kuulkka, and the rule below:
Good point! I suppose that would become either kuukka or kuvukka (the
latter obviously with dissimilation).
>3. Lateral + stop => /u/ + stop; e.g. *pelkku => peukku. This change
>occurs even when the vowel is already long, so *ceer.t.t.i and
>would have the same outcome, ceeut.t.i.
>Oh, and in your transcription above, what do the dots mean? I'd
>think syllable boundaries, but does this mean each /t/ is its own
The dots indicate retroflex articulation.
>Also, does this apply to long vowels?
Long vowels are considered monosyllabic, but dimoraic.
>1. Nasal + stop => nasal vowel + stop; e.g. *pamppu => päppu (where <ä>
>denotes /a~/). This is where (most of) the nasal vowels come from.
>Thus, *paamppu would become /pa:~ppu/.
>Oh, and you gave an example at the bottom:
>sampusan koyur. = ['sam.pu.sa~ 'ko.jur`]
>Shouldn't that be ['sa~.pu.sa~ 'ko.jur`], via rule 1?
Sorry, I should've been more specific. The nasalization rules only occur
when a vocalic nucleus is followed by a coda nasal *and* a coda stop. So,
<sampusan> would remain /'sam.pu.san/ in isolation.
>Looks neat! I also like the dental fricatives.
Thanks! I think what I'll do is keep the dental fricative and have a
retroflex affricate as its 'counterpart'. They could descend from /t_h/
and /t`_h/, respectively.