Re: Tíngrjsil etabnammity
|From:||JS Bangs <jaspax@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, July 29, 2003, 18:20|
Julien Eychenne sikyal:
> JS Bangs wrote:
> > The consonants come in two sets, palatalized and unpalatalized (a la
> > Slavic or Irish Gaelic), though some sound shifts have made the palatal
> > label convenient rather than descriptive. Here's a quick rundown:
> > Non-palatalized Palatalized
> > ------------------------------
> > p t k p' ts,tS tC
> > b d g b' dz dj\
> > f s x f' S C
> > v z v' Z
> > m n m' J
> > l K\
> > r z`
> > The vowels are seven:
> > ----------------
> > i 1 u
> > e @ o
> > a
> > Here's where the fun comes in. Palatalization is indicated by the vowels,
> > not the consonants. The vowels /i e/ always provoke palatalization, and
> > the vowels /@ 1/ sometimes do. The vowels /u o a/ never palatalize (except
> > sometimes).
> > In the orthography, we write the full vowels /i e u o/ as |í é ú ó|. The
> > unaccented versions are used for the central vowels: |e| for /@/ when the
> > preceding consonant is palatalized, otherwise |o|, and |i| for  when
> > the preceding consonant is palatalized, otherwise |u|. Thus, we get the
> > following syllables:
> > ki ke ku ko ka kí ké kó kú
> > tC1 tC@ k1 k@ ka tCi tCe ko ku
> I do love the fact that /@/ palatalizes a consonant and the way
> orthography indicates it. It might be the case that schwa comes from
> */e/ and */o/ (who merged), and /e/ reported its palatality on a
> preceding consonant, as it often happens. And
> maybe this just what you have in mind (?).
This is just what I have in mind, conveniently. The original vowel system
is something like /i e u o I E M V a/, where /I M/ eventually merged to
/1/, but /I/ left behind palatalization on the vowel, and likewise /E V/
merged to /@/, but /E/ left behind palatalization. The orthography does a
pretty good job of representing the original vowel values, although there
are complications with stress that get lost. There also were sequences of
/jM/ and /jV/ that effectively merge with /I/ and /E/
(Actually, it's more complicated than this in the real proto-language:
what I've described above is more like pre-Tzingrizil).
> However (WARNING : I may be wrong ;)), if orthography is somehow
> related to phonology, I'm not sure whether /1/ causing palatalization is
> a realistic phenomenon. This is quite common that vowels palatalize
> consonants and reduce themselves to schwa, but I'm not sure we find in
> natural languages /1/ causing palatalization.
Well, as I said above, those instances of /1/ that cause palatalization
derive from historical /I/, so I don't find this too unrealistic.
> > There are some front vowels that don't palatalize, though, and for those
> > we put an |a| between the consonant and the vowel.
> This is particularly interesting, and looks nice in your examples. I
> have just one question : do you use |a| for both /6/ and
> "depalatalization" diacritic ?
There is no /6/, but yes, I do use |a| for both /a/ and the depalatalizing
diacritic. There is no ambiguity here, since Tzingrizhil has no
diphthongs, or at least no diphthongs spelled as such. |ai| is always [i]
with an unpalatalized consonant preceding; the sequence [aI] is spelled
Jesse S. Bangs email@example.com
Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"
And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground
of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our
And Jesus said, "What?"