Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?

From:John Vertical <johnvertical@...>
Date:Monday, August 11, 2008, 13:21
> Tangentially, how does your J-less conlang transliterate the "J" sound in > "Jim" and "John"? I've done so by substituting "Z" [dz] for it in Cl. Ar.
I assume any of /z zj Z d dz dj J\ j\/ should work, by individual preference. If there are no voiced coronal obstruents, /j/ might be a closer match than voiceless obstruents.
> In the modern tongue a different problem presents itself: diachronically, > sequences of [diV] or [djV] are supposed to simplify to [dʒV] and [giV], > [gjV] to [ʒV]. However, what would happen to [di], [di:], [dy] and [dy:]? > Ought [di] remain [di] or morph to [dʒi]?
Either way is probably fine, they just require different diachronics. By palatalization + assibilation [dj] > [J\] > [dZ] you should get [di] > [dZi] too (and probably [gi] > [Zi]); but if you rather go for glide fortition [j] > [Z] you'll get zhibilants only from the clusters.
> Ought [di:] be analysed as [dii] and pronounced [dʒi]?
Doesn't sound very plausible, but having said that someone will probably smack me in the face with ANADEW...
> How about [dy]/[dy:], given that diachronically they derive from sequences > of [dui(:)/dwi(:)] or [diu(:)/dju(:)]? Has any natlang encountered such a > situation before (the lengths are phonemically distinguished)?
> Eugene
Old English did not palatalize before rounded front vowels. [kYn] > [kIn] [kIn] > [tSIn] Counterexamples of languages that do, likely exist too. One branch of Slavic has done [kwi] > [tsvi] for a first approximation... John Vertical

Reply

Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>