There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Jarda vowel alternation
From: Herman Miller
1b. Re: Jarda vowel alternation
From: BPJ
1c. Re: Jarda vowel alternation
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2. Semi-OT: Protolinguist Resources
From: Leland Paul Kusmer
3a. Re: vowels: five to three?
From: Njenfalgar
3b. Re: vowels: five to three?
From: Alex Fink
3c. Re: vowels: five to three?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Jarda vowel alternation
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:53 pm ((PST))
On 1/30/2013 10:53 AM, BPJ wrote:
> The obvious candidate for a culprit here is of course umlaut. Lets see, we
> have the tree basic types:
>
> -a : lowering
> -i/-j- : fronting/raising
> -u/-w- : rounding (backing?)
Some way to get backing without rounding would be useful for "ŏ" /ɤ/ and
"ŭ" /ɯ/.
> then the combined types
>
> -ja : fronting/lowering
> -wa : rounding/lowering
> -ju : fronting/rounding
> -wi : fronting/rounding
These could also come in handy for consonant alterations. I've already
been speculating that palatal and palatalized consonants come from
original consonant + /j/ or /j/ + consonant. So words like "skéģ" and
"sléź" (key, to remain) could come from original *skigja, *slizja then.
But then, words like "kuņ" (to decrease) and "tuņ" (there) probably
ought to be "küņ" and "tüņ"...
> I think you can probably cover all your cases there. You needn't worry too
> much about what vowels come in the next syllable in derivation since any
> discrepancy can be blamed on analogy or on formation taking place after
> umlaut was productive. The only thing which worries me a little is that so
> many different vowels alternate with /i/ but I guess that you can assume
> that */e/ from whatever source (which could include i-umlaut of /o/) merged
> with /i/ while */E/> /e/. If you have a synchronic /E/ it could arise from
> *a/_i or *E/_ja.
Sounds reasonable.
> You could e.g. have
>
> e/_i> i
> E/_i> e> i
> E/_a> a
> E/_ja> a> E/e
> E/_u> œ
> E/_ju> e> ø> y
>
> If you have both palatalized and unpalatalized consonants preceding front
> vowels that can be explained by palatalization preceding umlaut like in Old
> English.
Yes, that could work for words like "kiṛ" (hand), < *keṛi, since the
retroflex ṛ won't be palatalized. But a word like "kün" (to ride) ought
to be "küņ" if it comes from *kuni. Maybe something like *kwinu would work.
> It would help to know the synchronic inventory but assuming that the CALS
> data on Jarda is up to date you do have high and mid front rounded vowels.
> This need not be a problem if i- and u-umlaut weren't simultaneous.
> Possibly i-umlaut of back rounded vowels resulted in front unrounded vowels
> and u-umlaut of front unrounded vowels resulted in front rounded.
>
> u/_i> y> i
> o/_i> ø> e
> a/_i> æ> E
> i/_u> > y
> e/_u> > œ
> a/_u> > O
> u/_ju> y> i> y
> ikju> yč
> iku> yk
> ikwa> øk
> ikjwa> øč
>
> You get the idea: you can get any outcome you want!
>
> You can also treat front rounded monophthongs and diphthongs differently.
> My own conlang Rhodrese has this pattern:
>
> a/_i> E
> o/_i> ø> e> E
> u/_i> y
> ou/_i> øy> y
> uO/_i> yœ> œ
>
> so you get
>
> COSTAS> kost@z> kost@j> kosti> køst> kest
>
> but
>
> CAUSAS> > kousti> køyst> kyst
>
> and
>
> CORES> > kuor@j> kuori> kyœr> kœr
>
> Front vowels can arise and disappear again under different conditions
Diphthongs are very uncommon in Jarda (only in one common word, the
conjunction "au" meaning "and"), so it's likely that most diphthongs
changed to single vowels. Possibly something like *ai > e, *ei > i, *au
> o, *oi > ö, *ui > ü, *iu > ŭ, *eu > ŏ, etc.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Jarda vowel alternation
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:59 pm ((PST))
On 2013-01-31 04:53, Herman Miller wrote:
> On 1/30/2013 10:53 AM, BPJ wrote:
>> The obvious candidate for a culprit here is of course umlaut.
>> Lets see, we
>> have the tree basic types:
>>
>> -a : lowering
>> -i/-j- : fronting/raising
>> -u/-w- : rounding (backing?)
>
> Some way to get backing without rounding would be useful for "ŏ"
> /ɤ/ and "ŭ" /ɯ/.
The best is probably to have original back unrounded
vowels which front before *i/front vowels, round before
*u/rounded vowels and remain before *a/elsewhere, or
have back rounded vowels unround *except* in the context
of *w and then front before *i. There is nothing which says
you must start with /i e a o u/!
>
>> then the combined types
>>
>> -ja : fronting/lowering
>> -wa : rounding/lowering
>> -ju : fronting/rounding
>> -wi : fronting/rounding
>
> These could also come in handy for consonant alterations. I've
> already been speculating that palatal and palatalized consonants
> come from original consonant + /j/ or /j/ + consonant. So words
> like "skéģ" and "sléź" (key, to remain) could come from original
> *skigja, *slizja then. But then, words like "kuņ" (to decrease)
> and "tuņ" (there) probably ought to be "küņ" and "tüņ"...
Not necessarily; you can have palatalization from other/several
sources, e.g. Romance has it from both +j and from velar+dental
(with slightly different outcomes:
Latin Spanish
----------- ---------
vīnea viña
lĭgna[ŋn] leña
pretium precio
nocte noche
>>
>> If you have both palatalized and unpalatalized
>> consonants preceding front vowels that can be
>> explained by palatalization preceding umlaut like in
>> Old English.
>
> Yes, that could work for words like "kiṛ" (hand), <
> *keṛi, since the retroflex ṛ won't be palatalized.
> But a word like "kün" (to ride) ought to be "küņ" if
> it comes from *kuni. Maybe something like *kwinu
> would work.
Why not, or *kuŋnu/*kugnu.
>
> Diphthongs are very uncommon in Jarda (only in one
> common word, the conjunction "au" meaning "and"), so
> it's likely that most diphthongs changed to single
> vowels. Possibly something like *ai > e, *ei > i, *au
> > o, *oi > ö, *ui > ü, *iu > ŭ, *eu > ŏ, etc.
>
You could have the diphthongs arise from infixation
(which may well be ubiquitous in pre-Jarda!) so as to
get alternations:
| *kun > kŭn
| *ku<j>n > kün
| *ku<w>n > kun
| *ku<g>n > kŭņ
| *ku<w><g>n > kuņ
| ...
Consider also what dialect splits followed by
borrowing/mixture/koineization (which is not at all
unlikely with enough time depth) may bring you, and that
you can arrive at the same result by different equally
natural and simple paths:
---------- ---------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
*kunja *kujn kün
ćün
ćin
ćen
kön
ken
ćön
ćen
ćun
ćon
ćŏn
ćen
ćŭn
ćŏn
kin
ćin
ćen
kuń
kŭń
kiń
koń
kŏń
keń
(*kunj) küń
köń
keń
ćüń
ćuń
ćoń
ćŏń
ćöń
ćiń
ćeń
kiń
kŭń
kŏń
*kunn kun
kon
kŭn
kin
kŏn
---------- ---------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
where the unstarred forms may arise from each other as
well as exist simultaneously in different varieties --
and these possibilities aren't exhaustive: _ć_ can go
its several ways as well resulting in different
affricates and fricatives; _ń_ can become [j] or [n];
_n_ can become [~], [ŋ] or [r]; something like the
(High) German(ic) consonant shift g > k > kx > x > h
may happen etc. And I pruned som listing outcomes
similar to those occurring elsewhere in the table. Note
also that an earlier form of Jarda may have borrowed a
lot from just one/two/three more or less distant
relatives like English did with French/Latin/Norse and
those loans will have taken part in later Jarda sound
changes. I explain many recalcitrant words in Sohlob
and Cidilib as loans between the two languages. Note
also that subsystems may shrink and grow alternately,
and changes may apply in different order in different
branches. I used to believe that the proto-Sohlob vowel
system was /a i u/, but irreconcilable differences in
palatalization in Sohlob and Cidilib made me posit the
following scenario:
- The proto-vowels were /i ɨ u æ ɑ/.
- Both languages merged *ɨ/*i and *æ/*ɑ.
- Both languages palatalized before front vowels.
- In Sohlob palatalization preceded merger.
- In Cidilib merger preceded palatalization.
Thus *kɨtæ gave *kića in pre-Sohlob but *ćita in pre-Cidilib!
/bpj
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Jarda vowel alternation
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:11 pm ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Thursday 31 January 2013 22:59:47 BPJ wrote:
> On 2013-01-31 04:53, Herman Miller wrote:
> > On 1/30/2013 10:53 AM, BPJ wrote:
> >> The obvious candidate for a culprit here is of course umlaut.
> >> Lets see, we
> >> have the tree basic types:
> >>
> >> -a : lowering
> >> -i/-j- : fronting/raising
> >> -u/-w- : rounding (backing?)
> >
> > Some way to get backing without rounding would be useful for "ŏ"
> > /ɤ/ and "ŭ" /ɯ/.
>
> The best is probably to have original back unrounded
> vowels which front before *i/front vowels, round before
> *u/rounded vowels and remain before *a/elsewhere, or
> have back rounded vowels unround *except* in the context
> of *w and then front before *i. There is nothing which says
> you must start with /i e a o u/!
Indeed not! While /i e a o u/ is the most common vowel inventory
in human languages and therefore a "natural" choice for a starting
point of vowel diachronics, it is just one of many vowel systems,
and you can start with what you like.
> >> then the combined types
> >>
> >> -ja : fronting/lowering
> >> -wa : rounding/lowering
> >> -ju : fronting/rounding
> >> -wi : fronting/rounding
> >
> > These could also come in handy for consonant alterations. I've
> > already been speculating that palatal and palatalized consonants
> > come from original consonant + /j/ or /j/ + consonant. So words
> > like "skéģ" and "sléź" (key, to remain) could come from original
> > *skigja, *slizja then. But then, words like "kuņ" (to decrease)
> > and "tuņ" (there) probably ought to be "küņ" and "tüņ"...
>
> Not necessarily; you can have palatalization from other/several
> sources, e.g. Romance has it from both +j and from velar+dental
> (with slightly different outcomes:
>
> Latin Spanish
> ----------- ---------
> vīnea viña
> lĭgna[ŋn] leña
> pretium precio
> nocte noche
Also, Spanish has palatalized some geminates: _ll_ is /ʎ/,
and the grapheme _ñ_ for /ɲ/ started out as two _n_s stacked
atop each other.
> [...] I explain many recalcitrant words in Sohlob
> and Cidilib as loans between the two languages.
Yes. Like you, I have hit upon a few words in Old Albic which
show the "wrong" sound correspondences but nevertheless feel
"right" to me - I just ascribe them to dialect borrowing some
time in the past of the language.
> Note
> also that subsystems may shrink and grow alternately,
> and changes may apply in different order in different
> branches. I used to believe that the proto-Sohlob vowel
> system was /a i u/, but irreconcilable differences in
> palatalization in Sohlob and Cidilib made me posit the
> following scenario:
>
> - The proto-vowels were /i ɨ u æ ɑ/.
> - Both languages merged *ɨ/*i and *æ/*ɑ.
> - Both languages palatalized before front vowels.
> - In Sohlob palatalization preceded merger.
> - In Cidilib merger preceded palatalization.
>
> Thus *kɨtæ gave *kića in pre-Sohlob but *ćita in pre-Cidilib!
Yes, such variations of the order of changes can cause interesting
effects. These are the great joys of diachronic conlanging that
the engelangers and auxlangers and those who just pull words from
a vocabulary generator do not know ;)
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Semi-OT: Protolinguist Resources
Posted by: "Leland Paul Kusmer" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:31 pm ((PST))
A friend of mine runs a linguistics-focused Tumblr and has recently been
doing a set of resource posts for protolinguists, i.e. anyone with an
interest in linguistics but who haven't yet had any formal education in it
(most especially high schoolers who want to teach themselves the subject
before reaching university-age). Given that this label probably applied to
nearly all conlangers at some point or another, I thought perhaps people
here might find these interesting.
She's done phonetics & phonology, morphology, and syntax so far:
http://allthingslinguistic.tumblr.com/post/40375921441/protolinguist-resources-teaching-yourself
http://allthingslinguistic.tumblr.com/post/40962717566/protolinguist-resources-teaching-yourself-morphology
http://allthingslinguistic.tumblr.com/post/41559747481/protolinguist-resources-teaching-yourself-syntax
See also her post on the term protolinguist and why she uses it:
http://allthingslinguistic.tumblr.com/post/41818829210/what-and-who-is-a-protolinguist
These posts are mostly link-roundups of useful material for teaching
yourself linguistics, including some PDF textbook excerpts, Youtube series,
etc.
Anyone know of any other good link roundups, or links not included in these
posts that would be useful? She is planning on doing a semantics post soon,
and I've already told her that there's a *lot* missing from the morphology
post in terms of common categories of inflection in natlangs.
-Leland
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: vowels: five to three?
Posted by: "Njenfalgar" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:07 am ((PST))
2013/1/29 Patrick Dunn <[email protected]>
> I know that three-vowel systems sometimes become five vowel systems, but
> are there attestations of five-vowel systems collapsing into a three-vowel
> system? I'm toying with /ɑ/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ in a protolanguage
> collapsing into /ɑ/ , /i/, /u/, with length distinctions, in the daughter
> language. Perhaps via:
>
> /ɑ/ < /ɑ/
> /i/ < /i/
> /u/ < /u/
> /ɑu/ < /o/
> /ɑi/ < /e/
>
2013/1/29 Alex Fink <[email protected]>
> As for the diphthongisation, I don't think I've seen it per se (though I
> think some posit its like for pre-PIE). But it reminds me of these funny
> central-only vowel systems (e.g. Ubykh and its areamates; Marshallese)
> which have dramatic collapses of the phonemic vowel inventory after
> consonants get coloured by surrounding vowels. [i 1 u] > [_j1 1 _w1] and
> whatnot. So I could see e.g. [i E a O u] > /_ji _ja a _wa _wu/ [_ji _jE a
> _wO _wu] with the colouring later breaking again to /i ja a wa u/ [i jE a
> wO u] > [i ja a wa u].
>
There's plenty of languages where /o/ > /ow/ and /e/ > /ej/ (like many
Dutch 'lects, many Vietnamese ones, etc.), and > /aw/ and /aj/ resp. is
only a small step from there.
Greets,
David
--
Dos ony tãsnonnop, koták ony tãsnonnop.
http://njenfalgar.conlang.org/
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: vowels: five to three?
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:39 am ((PST))
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:07:03 -0200, Njenfalgar <[email protected]> wrote:
>2013/1/29 Patrick Dunn <[email protected]>
>
>> I know that three-vowel systems sometimes become five vowel systems, but
>> are there attestations of five-vowel systems collapsing into a three-vowel
>> system? I'm toying with /ɑ/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ in a protolanguage
>> collapsing into /ɑ/ , /i/, /u/, with length distinctions, in the daughter
>> language. Perhaps via:
>>
>> /ɑ/ < /ɑ/
>> /i/ < /i/
>> /u/ < /u/
>> /ɑu/ < /o/
>> /ɑi/ < /e/
>>
>
>2013/1/29 Alex Fink <[email protected]>
>
>> As for the diphthongisation, I don't think I've seen it per se (though I
>> think some posit its like for pre-PIE). But it reminds me of these funny
>> central-only vowel systems (e.g. Ubykh and its areamates; Marshallese)
>> which have dramatic collapses of the phonemic vowel inventory after
>> consonants get coloured by surrounding vowels. [i 1 u] > [_j1 1 _w1] and
>> whatnot. So I could see e.g. [i E a O u] > /_ji _ja a _wa _wu/ [_ji _jE a
>> _wO _wu] with the colouring later breaking again to /i ja a wa u/ [i jE a
>> wO u] > [i ja a wa u].
>>
>
>There's plenty of languages where /o/ > /ow/ and /e/ > /ej/ (like many
>Dutch 'lects, many Vietnamese ones, etc.), and > /aw/ and /aj/ resp. is
>only a small step from there.
Fair point, but both of these are languages which are relatively brimful with
vowel qualities to start with. It's much easier to get pure vowels to break,
for increased distinctiveness, if there are lots of other pure vowels crowding
them in.
Also, at least in the Vietnamese case, the change is most significant in open
syllables. That might be a fun thing to do here too (though I don't know how
it would interact with Patrick's plans for length) -- [e o] > [aj aw] in
(stressed) open syllables, [i u] or [a a] in closed ones.
Alex
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: vowels: five to three?
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:17 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Wednesday 30 January 2013 18:35:00 BPJ wrote:
> Sicilian comes close with
>
> ī ĭ ē > i
> ū ŭ ō > u
> ā ă > a
>
> Had only ĕ ŏ merged with a it would have been a done deal.
That would be a lostlang idea. A romlang with only three vowel
qualities!
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (10)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
