Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CONLANG Digest - 24 Nov 2000

From:Yoon Ha Lee <yl112@...>
Date:Sunday, November 26, 2000, 20:09
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Elliott Lash wrote:

> The way I slightly understand it, one way to reconstruct a protolang from > just one language might be... rrr.. sort of like the idea of 'underlying > form'. If, say, an affix has one appearance in some stems, and another in > other stems, one might try to reconstruct an "original"/"underlying" form > that in your modern language produces two forms due to sound change but in > the protolanguage was only one, and perhaps find a way to reverse-engineer > that kind of sound change elsewhere. Er. Or not. > > This is exactly what happens in my languages, Silindion. The genitive > suffix can be variously -ti, -ni, -di, or -ri depending on the final sound > in the > stem of the noun. > > Examples: > séhwa "twig" > sehwári "of a twig" > ívan "familly" > ivándi "of a familly" > mar "city" > márni "of a city" > oss "wind" > ósti "of wind" > > From this I have discovered that the original suffix must have been -di. > This > then assimilated to the base. > The same sort of process occurs with the passive participle marker. This > could > be -dë, -të, -në, -ë, and -rë. The underlying suffix was -dai
Neat! I wish I knew how to do things like this. :-/ I foolishly decided to use triconsonantal morphology in a case-marking language and have, as a result, thoroughly confused myself. I've considered ditching the triconsonantal morphology (gosh, I *hate* typing those words!) And unfortunately I have not yet had the opportunity, schedule-wise, to learn Arabic or some other Semitic language so I can read up on the "real thing"! <wry g> Thank you for sharing. YHL