Re: Update for Jovian

Jeff Jones wrote:


>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:24:19 +0200, Christian Thalmann <cinga@...>
>wrote:
>>Similarly, I have made a single simple change in the phonology of
>>Jovian (namely that final -u should be pronounced as /@/ rather than
>>/U/), which has led me to add more mutations and a set of optional
>articles.
>>
>>The problem was that feminine and masculine nouns of the same stem
>>(e.g. |fiju| and |fija| from Latin filius, filia) sounded
>>indistinguishable (/"fi:j@/).  So I decided that the ending -u, being
>>derived from Latin -us, should not cause lenition like other final
>>vowels.  What is more, the Latin s actually becomes audible when a
>>consonant follows.
>>
>>Example:
>>
>>fija /"fi:j@/ "daughter"
>>fija bella /"fi:j@"vell@/ "beautiful daughter"
>>tua fija aumbrosa /"tu:@"vi:jom"bro:z@/ "love-smitten daughter"
>>
>>fiju /"fi:j@/ "son"
>>fiju bellu /"fi:j@"bell@/ "beautiful son"
>>tuu fiju aumbrosu /"tu:@"fi:j@zom"bro:z@/ "love-smitten son"
>>
>>In case you're wondering, aumbrosu < aomrosus < amorosus.
>
>That part, I figured out. I _am_ wondering about:
>1) if not writing any indication for the 1st /z/ in the 6th example, other
>than the {u}, is intentional,
Probably, and no need to; its presence is indicated by the failure of the
initial f > v change.
My guess at underlying forms: { tua }, { fija }, { tuus}, { fijus }.
f > v when intervocalic (so blocked by the {-s}); in turn, {-s} > z
intervocalic.
Quite nice, IMO.

Question: what are the plural forms?  Do Jovian nouns descend from the Lat.
accusative, or nominative?  If the former, and with generalized  plural *-s,
then you'll have homophony there.

>2) why {tua} and {tuu} are not reflected in the translations,
I assume those are 2d pers. possessive pronouns.  (What's the old saying to
excuse oversights-- "Even Homer nodded off...."?)

and
>3) what specifically Einstein's theory of relativity has to do with a new
>phonology.
Only C.T. can answer that. ;-)