Re: New Language - Tacakta
|From:||Joseph Fatula <fatula3@...>|
|Date:||Friday, December 6, 2002, 21:40|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Johansson" <and_yo@...>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: New Language - Tacakta
> >voiced stops: b, d, g
> >voiceless stops: p, t, k
> >aspirated stops: ph, th, kh
> >approximants: r, l
> >nasals: m, n
> >fricatives: f, s
> >affricates: ps, c, x - /ps/, /ts/, /ks/
> I don't think you can properly call [ps] and [ks] "affricates". Havingthem
> being monophonemic should however not be a problem.
I see what you mean. Well, they are monophonemic here.
> >Consonants may cluster many different ways, as may vowels. Stress is on
> >penultimate syllable.
> Are vowel "clusters", sometimes or always, diphthongal (or triphthongal
There are some diphthongs, I just didn't list them out. Any vowel (except
i) followed by i, and any vowel (except u) followed by u makes a diphthong.
> Are /s/ and /f/ always voiceless, or would they turn into [z] and [v] in
> some positions?
No, they stay voiceless all the time. And I just realized, I forgot a
phoneme, /z/. But there are no other voiced fricatives.
> Is there any reason NOT to consider "generic" a fourth gender? Do generic
> words differ from Earthly, Alive and Divine ones in any more substantial
> ways than lacking a plural vocative?
The speakers of this language think of generic as a sort of catch-all
outside of the regular gender system. But in a more objective view, yes, it
is another gender.
> So, essentially Strong1 and Strong2 represent mixes between the Strong3and
> the weak declension. Have they earlier been more "independent" declensions
> with forms of their own?
No. In older times, when adding an ending, if the consonant of the ending
made an illegal cluster with the consonants of the word, you simply removed
the consonant of the ending (or used an irregular vowel-initial ending).
This system was more obvious at one time. Now, due to sound changes, many
of the words that once took vowel-initial endings don't need to to prevent
clusters anymore, but they still take the same endings as the anti-cluster
rule is no longer productive. That's the origin of the whole strong/weak
> Is there a tendency for Strong1 and Strong2 words
> to migrate to the weak declension, seeing that they share most of their
> forms with them (excpet for Strong1 generics, that is - prehaps these tend
> to become Strong3?)? Especially non-generic Strong1 nouns seem vulnerableto
> this, since they only differ from weak nouns in the genitive singular!
In a descendant of this language, the declensions simplify kind of like
> Is the extra /a/ in the nom sg just there to prevent a final /-pk/, or has
> it some other justification?
That's all there is to it. But the rule is no longer productive. As a
result, many words have a nom sg. form and a root form.
> The genitive marker appears to be "-tia" everywhere except in the weak
> singular, where it's simply "-ia". Any explanation for this?
The original genitive marker was -tia, but reduced to -ia after a consonant
that could not cluster with t. All of the formerly independant plural
endings were capable of taking -tia.
> The generic and Earthly strong plurals all show an extra /t/ inserted into
> the endings; do this have any special significance or explanation?
This is the same phenomenon of certain consonants dropping out to fit
consonants of the root word.
> >--- Conjugation ---
> >Verbs are divided up into similar categories as nouns.
> >Strong1 and 2 use the strong conjugation for the indicative future.
> >Strong3 are always strong.
> >Weak verbs are always weak.
> What's the difference between Strong1 and Strong2?
> >--- Necessitative
> >present -il
> >past -ilteir
> >future -iläda
> What 's the function of the Necessitative mood? I take it that weak and
> strong verbs take the same endings for it?
"must" or "should", indicating what needs to be done or what ought to be
done. And yes, weak and strong verbs use the same endings here.
Thanks for all the questions, I hope this answers them.