Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

CONLANG Digest - 5 Nov 2000

From:Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
Date:Tuesday, November 7, 2000, 6:23
> From: Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...> > Subject: Re: CONLANG Digest - 1 Nov 2000 > > En réponse à Muke Tever <alrivera@...>: > > Another aside: _How_, just how, do things like Proto-IE *dw and *bhr > > become > > Armenian *rk and *lb? > > I don't know for *bhr, but I know nearly by heart how *dw evolved into *rk
in
> Armenian. My example is IE *dwo (two) becoming *erku in Armenian: > *dwo -> *dgo -> *rgo -> *rko -> *rku -> *erku
I figured, just recently, that it'd have to have been something like that. Thankyrr.
> [snip of interesting grammatical stuff] > > I like the idea of V-minus-2 position. I think it would make sense if
there was
> prosodic reasons, as for V2 in Germanic languages (as far as I remember,
in Old
> Germanic tongues, the verb was tonic when in the subjunctive mood, and
atonic in
> the indicative mood. And for prosodic reasons, atonic forms tended to come
at
> the second position in the sentence, while tonic forms stayed at the end
of it.
> That would account for the distribution V2 in principal clauses, V-final
in
> subclauses). I think it's possible to have such kind of prosodic features,
don't
> you?
I'm sure I could see if something like that could be arranged, only I don't quite know what 'tonic' and 'atonic' mean here. It sounds interesting.
> From: Roger Mills <romilly@...> > Subject: Re: What is gemination? What are geminates? > > I too was unaware of this distinction, though it seems reasonable > enough..... > For conlang purposes, it would be possible to link gemination with stress, > either > ...V[stressed]CV ...> V[str]C:V... or ...VCV[str]... >
...VC:V[str]...
> Kash does the first. IIRC there are natlang cases of both.
I have a change like this, in Hadwan B -> ?unnamed lang. Affricate consonant becomes geminate consonant after stressed syllable, so say /af'litsU:/ -> /af'lit:U/. This is, indeed, one of the only things I know about ?unnamed lang so far, and IIRC was the very reason it was built. I'm not sure if the second rule happened also (say, /vra:'tsir/ -> /vra's:ir/..) or not.
> From: Elliott Lash <AL260@...> > Subject: Re: CONLANG Digest - 1 Nov 2000 > >> Another aside: _How_, just how, do things like Proto-IE *dw and *bhr >> become Armenian *rk and *lb? > > I'm not entirely sure, but *bhr > lb looks like a simple metathesis > *bhr > rbh followed by a change r > l and bh > b.
I don't know for sure if l is /l/ or what. But that's rather what I thought it might be. (I was in an etymological dictionary, and it gave Arm. <elbayr> (where l is barred) for IE *bhra:ter, and mentioned initial *bhr- to elb- was a regular change.) Are "regular" metathesis changes common? Hadwan A has *[affricate][liquid] -> [sibilant][stop][liquid], basically meaning stuff like */tsr/ becomes /str/.
> From: Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> > Subject: Re: CONLANG Digest - 1 Nov 2000 > > In addition, using un- instead of in- sounds less odd than vice versa, > in other words, "unpossible" wouldn't sound too odd, but "inbelievable" > would sound very odd. Also, if I had to coin a word, I'd be more likely > to use "un-" than "in-", I'd say "unlinguistic" or "uncomputerized" > rather than ??"illinguistic" or *"incomputerized"
Side question, is it a rule that un- goes with -able and -ible only goes with in-? I had a pair here... a word that could take either un- or in-, and forgot it. Dah. (Actually, I think it took un- normally, but switched to in- when -ible was added?) m-w.com lists six of words as un*ible, but the only palatable [!unpalatable] ones are "unintelligible" and "unsusceptible" (others, like ?unfeasible and ?unplausible, seem infeasible and implausible...) *Muke! -- http://muke.twu.net/