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

Re: [folkspraak] denominalization with -ij-, -j-, -oj-

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    ... I don t really agree. In Dutch, English and Scandy, for the most part, there seems to be little difference between i-mutated and original versions of *au.
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      stefichjo wrote:

      >I have tried out a new concept for rendering PG *au in Folksprak.
      >
      >- PG *au is FS "o".
      >- The denominalization to a verb causes i-mutation, and PG *au + *ij
      >turns to FS "eu".
      >
      >PG *draugiz > FS drog (EN dry, DE trocken)
      >FS dreuge (EN to drain, DE trocknen)
      >
      >
      I don't really agree. In Dutch, English and Scandy, for the most part,
      there seems to be little difference between i-mutated and original
      versions of *au. The difference in English seems to have merged. That
      is, PG *au and PG *au+i haved ended up with the same sound. Ditto for
      Scandy, most instances of *au have become ö/ø. And in Dutch, it's always
      "oo". So only in German is there this strange (and to me inexplicable)
      split into "oh" and "au". I really don't know why the vowels in "Bohne"
      and "Baum" are different. Also there is a very wide range of sounds
      between the EN evolution of *au as "ea" and the German evolution as
      oh/au. With such a wide range of sounds, to me [2:] seems to straddle
      the mean sound better than [o:]. Also if PG *au becomes [o:], it would
      merge with a very common vowel sound and possibly produce more homonyms
      than merging with PG *ô + i would. It would be merging with PG *u (in
      cases where this becomes long -- such as FS open, over, bog) and PG ô
      and Romance "o". I'd suspect this would create more homonyms unless you
      can evolve some of those proto-vowels into something else. (Such as
      maybe PG ô becomes [u:]).



      >PG *fullaz > FS foll (EN full, DE voll)
      >PG *fullijan > FS fylle (EN to fill, DE füllen)
      >
      >PG *kamba- > FS kamm (EN comb, DE Kamm)
      >PG *kambijan > FS kemme (EN to comb, DE kämmen)
      >
      >
      Interesting: The Old English ancester of "to comb" was "cemban". In
      Middle English this merged with the noun version. But the past
      participle survived in fossilised form in the adjective "unkempt"

      >PG *lausaz > FS los (EN loose, DE lose)
      >FS leuse (EN to lease, DE lösen)
      >
      >PG *luftuz > FS luft (EN air, cf. loft, DE Luft)
      >PG *luftijan > FS lyfte (EN to lift, DE lüften)
      >
      >PG *marka > FS mark (EN mark)
      >PG *markijan > FS merke (EN to remark, DE merken)
      >
      >PG *rasto > FS rast (EN rest, DE Rast)
      >PG *rastjo > FS reste (EN to rest, DE rasten)
      >
      >PG *rekhtaz > FS recht (EN right, DE Recht)
      >PG *rekhtijan > FS rechte / richte (EN to judge, DE richten)
      >
      >PG *reukan > FS ryke, rok, roken (EN to smell (percieve), DE riechen)
      >PG *raukaz > FS rok (EN smoke, reek, DE Rauch)
      >FS reuke (EN to smoke, DE rauchen)
      >
      >PG *smerwa > FS smer (EN fat?, DE Schmer)
      >PG *smerwijan > FS smere / smire (EN to smear, DE schmieren)
      >
      >PG *snaiwaz > FS snee (EN snow, DE Schnee)
      >PG *sniw- > FS snie (EN to snow, DE scheien)
      >
      >PG *thakan > FS tak (EN thatch, DE Dach)
      >PG *thakijan > FS teke / tecke (EN to cover, cf. deck, DE decken)
      >
      >PG *talo > FS tal (EN tale, DE Zahl)
      >PG *taljan > FS tele / telle (EN to tell, DE zählen)
      >
      >PG *wunsk > FS wunsch (EN wish, DE Wunsch)
      >PG *wunskijan > FS wynsche (EN to wish, DE wünschen)
      >
      >
      Some/Most of these are OK. But I don't think it should necessarily be a
      systematic rule for FS. Whether the vowel is i-mutated or not, should be
      determined by the majority evolutions, not by a rule. For example, I
      know that German is "Kuss" (noun) and "küssen" (verb). And yes, this is
      reflecting how the orignal *u vowel has been affect by i-mutation when a
      suffix has been applied to the verb form. But not in the real world
      germlangs, this doesn't happen all the time. Example: English has "kiss"
      (noun) and "to kiss" (verb). Middle English DID have "coss" and "kiss",
      but in modern English, the two forms have merged. Same for Dutch, there
      is no *kos/kussen difference. And neither in Swedish is there *kuss/kyssa.
      So where the majority of the source language really do have a difference
      between i-mutant and un-mutant versions of the PG vowels, by all means,
      make the distinction. (EN full/to fill is a good example) But don't make
      it an active, productive part of FS. (That seems too much like a complex
      grammatical rule that need learning).
      And there are some proto-vowels that probably shouldn't be subject to
      i-mutation in FS at all because in the majority of modern germlangs, the
      distinction is not there. (Either there never was a distinction, or the
      i-mutant has merged back with un-mutant.) . I think probably not PG *ai
      or *î or *au.


      >
      >The combination PG *lj is FS "ll", so it should be FS telle (EN to
      >tell), but I'm trying something more regular, i. e. assuming that the
      >suffix -ij- is used instead, not shortening the stem vowel; but a
      >variety of denominalization suffixes (-ij-, -j-, -oj-) should be taken
      >into consideration always, having i-mutation _with_ stem shortening
      >(-j-) and i-mutation _without_ stem shortening (-ij-). The suffix -oj-
      >seems not to i-mutate a stem's "a".
      >
      >I'm also trying to sort of i-mutate PG *ai to FS "i", like in FS
      >"snee", "snie" (EN snow, to snow). This could be generalized for every
      >FS "e" (FS smer, smire?, FS recht, richte?).
      >
      >So, both "boom" and "to beam", and "loop" and "to leap" could exist in
      >FS: bom/beume, lop/leupe. Then it looks as if in EN the denominalized
      >verb "beume" (to beam) has been denominalized to a noun again (the
      >beam). I say "it looks as if". But it's a sort of linguistical
      >conspiracy theory that might might explain both forms, and justifying
      >both stems in FS.
      >
      >A simplification of the language would consist in not i-mutating in
      >these cases, having "wunsch" and "wunsche" (not *"wynsche*) and so on.
      >
      >What do you think?
      >
      >Bye,
      >Stephan
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >No virus found in this incoming message.
      >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      >Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.0/819 - Release Date: 26/05/2007 10:47 a.m.
      >
      >
    • stefichjo
      ... I agree. ... always ... I don t think its inexplicable. The vowel shift from au to o happens in Romance languages as well. I call this auflautung. LA
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:
        >
        > stefichjo wrote:
        >
        > >I have tried out a new concept for rendering PG *au in Folksprak.
        > >
        > >- PG *au is FS "o".
        > >- The denominalization to a verb causes i-mutation, and PG *au + *ij
        > >turns to FS "eu".
        > >
        > >PG *draugiz > FS drog (EN dry, DE trocken)
        > >FS dreuge (EN to drain, DE trocknen)
        > >
        > >
        > I don't really agree.

        > In Dutch, English and Scandy, for the most part,
        > there seems to be little difference between i-mutated and original
        > versions of *au. The difference in English seems to have merged.

        I agree.

        > That
        > is, PG *au and PG *au+i haved ended up with the same sound. Ditto for
        > Scandy, most instances of *au have become ö/ø. And in Dutch, it's
        always
        > "oo". So only in German is there this strange (and to me inexplicable)
        > split into "oh" and "au".

        I don't think its inexplicable. The vowel shift from "au" to "o"
        happens in Romance languages as well. I call this auflautung.

        LA aurum -> IT oro
        LA claustrum -> DE Kloster
        LA calidus -> IT caldo -> FR chaud (pronounced /So:/).

        > I really don't know why the vowels in "Bohne"
        > and "Baum" are different.

        Neither do I. In Berlin we say "Boom" instead of "Baum" anyway, "ooch"
        instead of "auch", "loofen" instead of "laufen", "broochen" instead of
        "brauchen" and so on.
        The difference between "au" and "oo" (my coining: auflautung) is not
        so important (to me) like the question of being i-mutated or not...

        > Also there is a very wide range of sounds
        > between the EN evolution of *au as "ea" and the German evolution as
        > oh/au. With such a wide range of sounds, to me [2:] seems to straddle
        > the mean sound better than [o:].

        ... so *au has a variety of i-mutated and non-i-mutated sounds in
        modern germlangs. I would subsummarize the i-mutated sounds with FS
        "eu" and the non-i-mutated sounds with FS "o". In my opintion, the
        mean sound of these two is merely an [@:].

        > Also if PG *au becomes [o:], it would
        > merge with a very common vowel sound and possibly produce more homonyms
        > than merging with PG *ô + i would.

        I have tried both [o:] and [2:], and I haven't found so many homonyms
        so far in both cases. Do you have any in mind? ... I can think of
        "greute" (EN to greet) which would be a homonym to *grautaz, unless we
        leave "great" in FS unmutated: "grot".

        > It would be merging with PG *u (in
        > cases where this becomes long -- such as FS open, over, bog) and PG ô
        > and Romance "o". I'd suspect this would create more homonyms unless you
        > can evolve some of those proto-vowels into something else. (Such as
        > maybe PG ô becomes [u:]).

        This isn't neccessary. Homonyms are no problem in this case.


        > >PG *fullaz > FS foll (EN full, DE voll)
        > >PG *fullijan > FS fylle (EN to fill, DE füllen)
        > >
        > >PG *kamba- > FS kamm (EN comb, DE Kamm)
        > >PG *kambijan > FS kemme (EN to comb, DE kämmen)
        > >
        > >
        > Interesting: The Old English ancester of "to comb" was "cemban". In
        > Middle English this merged with the noun version. But the past
        > participle survived in fossilised form in the adjective "unkempt"

        Which would be your FS words in this case?

        > >PG *lausaz > FS los (EN loose, DE lose)
        > >FS leuse (EN to lease, DE lösen)
        > >
        > >PG *luftuz > FS luft (EN air, cf. loft, DE Luft)
        > >PG *luftijan > FS lyfte (EN to lift, DE lüften)
        > >
        > >PG *marka > FS mark (EN mark)
        > >PG *markijan > FS merke (EN to remark, DE merken)
        > >
        > >PG *rasto > FS rast (EN rest, DE Rast)
        > >PG *rastjo > FS reste (EN to rest, DE rasten)
        > >
        > >PG *rekhtaz > FS recht (EN right, DE Recht)
        > >PG *rekhtijan > FS rechte / richte (EN to judge, DE richten)
        > >
        > >PG *reukan > FS ryke, rok, roken (EN to smell (percieve), DE riechen)
        > >PG *raukaz > FS rok (EN smoke, reek, DE Rauch)
        > >FS reuke (EN to smoke, DE rauchen)
        > >
        > >PG *smerwa > FS smer (EN fat?, DE Schmer)
        > >PG *smerwijan > FS smere / smire (EN to smear, DE schmieren)
        > >
        > >PG *snaiwaz > FS snee (EN snow, DE Schnee)
        > >PG *sniw- > FS snie (EN to snow, DE scheien)
        > >
        > >PG *thakan > FS tak (EN thatch, DE Dach)
        > >PG *thakijan > FS teke / tecke (EN to cover, cf. deck, DE decken)
        > >
        > >PG *talo > FS tal (EN tale, DE Zahl)
        > >PG *taljan > FS tele / telle (EN to tell, DE zählen)
        > >
        > >PG *wunsk > FS wunsch (EN wish, DE Wunsch)
        > >PG *wunskijan > FS wynsche (EN to wish, DE wünschen)
        > >
        > >
        > Some/Most of these are OK. But I don't think it should necessarily be a
        > systematic rule for FS. Whether the vowel is i-mutated or not,
        should be
        > determined by the majority evolutions, not by a rule.

        Then these words would have to be learned word by word, which
        increases the effort of learning the language. At least, with a
        slightly sophisticated rule, one might be able to facilitate this.

        > For example, I
        > know that German is "Kuss" (noun) and "küssen" (verb). And yes,
        this is
        > reflecting how the orignal *u vowel has been affect by i-mutation
        when a
        > suffix has been applied to the verb form. But not in the real world
        > germlangs, this doesn't happen all the time. Example: English has
        "kiss"
        > (noun) and "to kiss" (verb).
        > Middle English DID have "coss" and "kiss",
        > but in modern English, the two forms have merged.

        This might have happened due to nominalization from the verb "to kiss"
        to a noun, supplanting the original "coss". No info.

        > Same for Dutch, there
        > is no *kos/kussen difference. And neither in Swedish is there
        *kuss/kyssa.

        But you cannot merge "kuss", "küss" and "kiss" to "k@ss".
        I find it preferable to have both i-mutated and not i-mutated forms
        with this rule of denominalization: "kuss", "kysse".

        > So where the majority of the source language really do have a
        difference
        > between i-mutant and un-mutant versions of the PG vowels, by all means,
        > make the distinction. (EN full/to fill is a good example) But don't
        make
        > it an active, productive part of FS. (That seems too much like a
        complex
        > grammatical rule that need learning).

        If it is too complex to learn that "fill" comes from "full", then you
        are still free to learn both words independently, which is the status
        quo at the moment. You don't have to learn this rule (or "observation").

        I think we need both forms in FS, with and without i-mutation, and we
        need to provide both forms a reason of existence. This
        denominalization is very common in DE and therefore it is only
        probable that I make the proposal for such a denominalization rule. My
        aim is not to DE-ize FS, but to integrate both forms into FS, since
        merging is impossible.

        > And there are some proto-vowels that probably shouldn't be subject to
        > i-mutation in FS at all because in the majority of modern germlangs,
        the
        > distinction is not there. (Either there never was a distinction, or the
        > i-mutant has merged back with un-mutant.) . I think probably not PG *ai
        > or *î or *au.

        Hm, you cannot i-mutate *î. What do you mean? And you always i-mutate
        *au...

        Thank you for your comments.

        Bye,
        Stephan
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.