Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?

Thanks for the examples! I originally projected [di] vs. [dZa] etc., and I
think I shall stick to that -- I feared it was too unlikely.
By the way, what was that branch of Slavic? East? It doesn't seem to be due
to palatalisation, though...

Eugene

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:21 PM, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>wrote:

> > 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
>