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.
> 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.
> then assimilated to the base.
> The same sort of process occurs with the passive participle marker. This
> 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.