Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Update for Jovian

From:Roger Mills <romilly@...>
Date:Wednesday, August 14, 2002, 3:20
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. ;-)