Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: your opinion

Expand Messages
  • John Vertical
    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:50:25 -0500, Reilly Schlaier ... retroflex ... I gathered you re trying to do this, in essence: -1- [i I e]
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 1, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:50:25 -0500, Reilly Schlaier <schlaier@...>
      wrote:

      >>Which is fine by itself, but if you have for /I/ before a retroflex: [I] >
      >>[I\] > [M_x] > [U] (no distinction between /I Y U/ in that position, right?)
      >>the epenthetic [I\] should probably get dragged along too. Probably only the
      >>first step of that was conditioned; I can recall reading of a parallel of
      >>sorts from Norwegian, where [E] > [&] generally before retroflexes, but
      >>after [l:] >> [r`] and [s\] >> [s`], these new retroflexes do not cause the
      >>same change anymore. So it seems it was the [r] in the former clusters such
      >>as [rt rn] that originally triggered [E] > [&], not the retroflex [t` n`]
      >>etc. that they became.
      >
      >im not sure why that would drag [i\] along if it never occurs before a
      retroflex
      >right?
      >now im not sure
      >confuzzled

      I gathered you're trying to do this, in essence:
      -1- [i I e] become [i\ I\ @] before a retroflex
      -2- [i\ I\ @] become [M U 7] everywhere
      -1'- [@] becomes [I\] everywhere
      -2'- [I\] becomes [i\] everywhere

      But change -2-, which I'd argue to be unconditioned "drift" (ie. once the
      front vowels have developed the backed allophones, the retroflexes aren't
      "needed" any more for the further backing) should mess up either the input
      or output of changes -1'- and -2'-. OK, in theory it's possible that even
      -0'- [n= l=] become [@n @l] everywhere
      occurs after change -2- so the "vowel trajectories" would not strictly cross
      — but in your Big Inventory here, I just don't think an epenthetic vowel
      would take on a quality different from all the phonemic vowels. Altho I can
      see why you wouldn't *like* that; you'd get new intervocalic [k], which
      would mess up your neat "cross-allophonic" stop-system, in part.
      akn [akUn] = /akUn/ not /akn/
      akun [agUn] = /agUn/ not /akUn/
      agun [aGUn] = /aGUn/ not /agUn/

      John Vertical
    • Reilly Schlaier
      ... o becomes a sometimes because of an irregular a-umlaut its supposed to be across the board but tends to occur only rarely (because im not sure if i
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 1, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >Where does the _a_ in _skagg_- forms come from?

        'o' becomes 'a' sometimes because of an irregular a-umlaut
        its supposed to be across the board but tends to occur only rarely (because
        im not sure if i like it or not)

        >What led to _o_ being short in _skogg_?

        short vowels before doubled consonants
        again not a hard and fast rule

        >What led to _e_ being short in _hest_? (I know it is short in
        >Icelandic, but I never understood why. This is one point where my GMP
        >for Þrjótrunn does not predict the Icelandic form correctly.)

        thats probably me just not doing very good research lol

        >How do you let the suffixed article trigger umlaut in, say, 'hest' (I
        >suppose 'y' in 'hyst-' is from some i-umlaut)? I would think that the
        >suffixing process was quite late. Do you have another umlaut period?

        yes there is a second umlaut period which is still occuring

        >Another thing: I take it 'til' is a preposition? Why does it take
        >dative case? It takes genitive in Icelandic. (Dunno about Faroese,
        >though.)

        its actually just there to help distinguish the acc. from the dat.

        >Again, I think it's interesting work, please show us more of your
        >construction. I'd love to read more! :-)

        thank you
        im a fan of Þrjótrunn because of how impossibly well researched it is :)

        >**Henrik
      • Reilly Schlaier
        ... okay i think ive got it and now my head hurts lol but it seems to me that the only way to avoid messing up my neat :) system is to either voice it akn
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 1, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          >I gathered you're trying to do this, in essence:
          >-1- [i I e] become [i\ I\ @] before a retroflex
          >-2- [i\ I\ @] become [M U 7] everywhere
          >-1'- [@] becomes [I\] everywhere
          >-2'- [I\] becomes [i\] everywhere
          >
          >But change -2-, which I'd argue to be unconditioned "drift" (ie. once the
          >front vowels have developed the backed allophones, the retroflexes aren't
          >"needed" any more for the further backing) should mess up either the input
          >or output of changes -1'- and -2'-. OK, in theory it's possible that even
          >-0'- [n= l=] become [@n @l] everywhere
          >occurs after change -2- so the "vowel trajectories" would not strictly cross
          >— but in your Big Inventory here, I just don't think an epenthetic vowel
          >would take on a quality different from all the phonemic vowels. Altho I can
          >see why you wouldn't *like* that; you'd get new intervocalic [k], which
          >would mess up your neat "cross-allophonic" stop-system, in part.
          >akn [akUn] = /akUn/ not /akn/
          >akun [agUn] = /agUn/ not /akUn/
          >agun [aGUn] = /aGUn/ not /agUn/

          okay
          i think ive got it
          and now my head hurts lol
          but it seems to me that the only way to avoid messing up my neat :) system
          is to either voice it akn [agn=] or devoice the 'n' getting akn [ak_n] ish
        • Henrik Theiling
          Hi! ... It sure messed up the declension tables even more, so I tend to like it. :-) ... Where does it derive from, then? It confused me a bit. And I suppose
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 2, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi!

            Reilly Schlaier writes:
            >>Where does the _a_ in _skagg_- forms come from?
            >
            > 'o' becomes 'a' sometimes because of an irregular a-umlaut
            > its supposed to be across the board but tends to occur only rarely (because
            > im not sure if i like it or not)

            It sure messed up the declension tables even more, so I tend to like it. :-)

            >>Another thing: I take it 'til' is a preposition? Why does it take
            >>dative case? It takes genitive in Icelandic. (Dunno about Faroese,
            >>though.)
            >
            > its actually just there to help distinguish the acc. from the dat.

            Where does it derive from, then? It confused me a bit.

            And I suppose it would not be a problem if the acc and dat where
            indistinguishable from some words -- it happens in Icelandic, too.

            > im a fan of Þrjótrunn because of how impossibly well researched it is :)

            Wow, thanks! :-)

            **Henrik
          • Reilly Schlaier
            ... lol thats one of the reasons i left it ... til is just like toward and að in the øy table is the same as at
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 2, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              >>>Where does the _a_ in _skagg_- forms come from?
              >>
              >> 'o' becomes 'a' sometimes because of an irregular a-umlaut
              >> its supposed to be across the board but tends to occur only rarely (because
              >> im not sure if i like it or not)
              >
              >It sure messed up the declension tables even more, so I tend to like it. :-)

              lol thats one of the reasons i left it

              >>>Another thing: I take it 'til' is a preposition? Why does it take
              >>>dative case? It takes genitive in Icelandic. (Dunno about Faroese,
              >>>though.)
              >>
              >> its actually just there to help distinguish the acc. from the dat.
              >
              >Where does it derive from, then? It confused me a bit.
              >
              >And I suppose it would not be a problem if the acc and dat where
              >indistinguishable from some words -- it happens in Icelandic, too.

              'til' is just like 'toward'
              and 'að' in the "øy" table is the same as 'at'
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.