There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Greek Y (was:: Easy-typing Arabic romanization)
From: R A Brown
1b. Re: Greek Y (was:: Easy-typing Arabic romanization)
From: MorphemeAddict
2a. Literal vowel harmony for non-human artlang: phones, phonology, and
From: Nikolay Ivankov
3a. Re: vowels: five to three?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
4. Re: Arabic Transliteration (Was: Not really a conlang...)
From: Jeffrey Brown
5a. Re: Easy-typing Arabic romanization (was: Not really a conlang...)
From: Adnan Majid
6. OT a bookish question for anyone in the Netherlands
From: Roger Mills
7a. THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language familie
From: Leonardo Castro
7b. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
From: Dustfinger Batailleur
7c. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
From: Alex Fink
7d. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
From: David McCann
7e. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
From: Roger Mills
7f. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
From: BPJ
8a. Consonants in Jarda and Proto-Jardic
From: Herman Miller
8b. Re: Consonants in Jarda and Proto-Jardic
From: BPJ
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Greek Y (was:: Easy-typing Arabic romanization)
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 12:38 am ((PST))
As this deviates somewhat from the question of Arabic
romanization, I've changed the subject line.
On 07/02/2013 21:23, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Adnan Majid wrote:
>
[snip]
>> It helps that Arabic has only 3 main vowels. Thus the
>> vowel changes could be something like the following:
>> a->o, i->y, u->eu, or maybe a->o, i->e, u->y, or
>> whatever you'd like (for instance, we already use
>> "syria" to render the Arabic ".Sooriyya" as the Greek
>> "y" was originally similar to the french "eu").
>
> The Greek upsilon (whence "y") was originally pronounced
> similar to the French "u" [IPA y] (not "eu").
To be accurate, Greek Y (upsilon/ upsilon) was _originally_
pronounced [u] or, if long, [u:]. It retained that
pronunciation in the Doric dialects until those dialects
gave way to standard Hellenistic Greek in the later Roman
period.
It also retained that high back rounded pronunciation in
diphthongs in _all_ dialects, until the semivowel gave way
to [f] or [v] at some time in the late Hellenistic or early
Byzantine period.
The shift of [u] --> [y] (and, of course, [u:] --> [y:])
happened in the Ionic dialects, including Attic (the dialect
of Athens) possibly as early as the 6th cent BC, and seems
to have been established by the 5th century BC in all those
dialects. The Attic dialect eventually became the basis of
the Greek Koine of the Roman period and the pronunciation
[y(;)] became standard, before becoming unrounded at
sometime in the Byzantine period, giving the modern Greek
pronunciation of [i].
I am not aware of _any_ evidence that Y was anytime
pronounced like the [ø] or [œ] of French _eu_. Tho reading
above, I wonder if _eu_ is not, in fact, a typo for _ou_.
Greek ΣΥΡΙΑ (Syria) was originally pronounced [suria:], with
high pitch on the [i]. In Latin we find it variously
spelled as _Suria_, _Syria_ or _Siria_ - with all vowels
short (when vowel distinction was phonemic) - clearly
depending upon both the period and Greek dialect encountered
by the writer (the Greeks of 'Magna Graeca' of southern
Italy were originally Dorian speakers).
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Greek Y (was:: Easy-typing Arabic romanization)
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 4:03 am ((PST))
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:37 AM, R A Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> As this deviates somewhat from the question of Arabic romanization, I've
> changed the subject line.
>
> On 07/02/2013 21:23, MorphemeAddict wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Adnan Majid wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>
>> It helps that Arabic has only 3 main vowels. Thus the
>>> vowel changes could be something like the following:
>>> a->o, i->y, u->eu, or maybe a->o, i->e, u->y, or
>>> whatever you'd like (for instance, we already use
>>> "syria" to render the Arabic ".Sooriyya" as the Greek
>>> "y" was originally similar to the french "eu").
>>>
>>
>> The Greek upsilon (whence "y") was originally pronounced
>> similar to the French "u" [IPA y] (not "eu").
>>
>
> To be accurate, Greek Y (upsilon/ upsilon) was _originally_
> pronounced [u] or, if long, [u:]. It retained that
> pronunciation in the Doric dialects until those dialects
> gave way to standard Hellenistic Greek in the later Roman
> period.
>
> It also retained that high back rounded pronunciation in
> diphthongs in _all_ dialects, until the semivowel gave way
> to [f] or [v] at some time in the late Hellenistic or early
> Byzantine period.
>
> The shift of [u] --> [y] (and, of course, [u:] --> [y:])
> happened in the Ionic dialects, including Attic (the dialect
> of Athens) possibly as early as the 6th cent BC, and seems
> to have been established by the 5th century BC in all those
> dialects. The Attic dialect eventually became the basis of
> the Greek Koine of the Roman period and the pronunciation
> [y(;)] became standard, before becoming unrounded at
> sometime in the Byzantine period, giving the modern Greek
> pronunciation of [i].
>
Thanks for the correction.
stevo
>
> I am not aware of _any_ evidence that Y was anytime pronounced like the
> [ø] or [œ] of French _eu_. Tho reading above, I wonder if _eu_ is not, in
> fact, a typo for _ou_.
>
> Greek ΣΥΡΙΑ (Syria) was originally pronounced [suria:], with
> high pitch on the [i]. In Latin we find it variously
> spelled as _Suria_, _Syria_ or _Siria_ - with all vowels
> short (when vowel distinction was phonemic) - clearly
> depending upon both the period and Greek dialect encountered
> by the writer (the Greeks of 'Magna Graeca' of southern
> Italy were originally Dorian speakers).
>
> --
> Ray
> ==============================**====
> http://www.carolandray.plus.**com <http://www.carolandray.plus.com>
> ==============================**====
> "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
> for individual beings and events."
> [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
>
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Literal vowel harmony for non-human artlang: phones, phonology, and
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 4:49 am ((PST))
Well, what You describe seems pretty like my own Yanyarin project. The
speakers of Yanyarin are another species of homo, with restricted ability
fornusing their tongues. They also usenless consonants in their language as
they can theoretically produce. A great emphasis is then laid on
distinguishing then tones.
As for the realism - well, I actiually don't care much of it. I suppose
they may acquire the ability to distinguish different non-stamdaed sounds
on the cost of giving up on consonants. And the problem of divison of thei
words is sort of sloved by a highbpolysynthetism of the language.
08.02.2013 0:31 ������������ "Matthew George" <[email protected]> �������:
> This is my first attempt at any kind of constructed language, so I'd
> appreciate any feedback I can get on my crazy idea. Obviously, when
> dealing with a wholly fictional species, human physiology and psychology
> don't apply. But I'd like to be able to pronounce and use the language I
> create, even if only approximately - and my fictional humans should, too.
> And I don't know enough to recognize how hard I'm making things.
>
> My idea: the insectoid species I'm crafting a language for has lungs and
> produces a limited number of human-like phones, as well as a few that we
> can't (like mandible clacking). They have no lips and mouths more
> specialized than ours, so they can only manage dental, alveolar, and
> palato-alveolar sounds from the human range. It seems reasonable to say
> that their ability to make vowels would also be somewhat restricted - no
> rounding possible, and a limited 'back' dimension. Add on the restriction
> that their language would have to involve a lot of buzzing, so voicing is
> mandatory... and there aren't that many possible sounds remaining, and the
> restricted vowel space makes it harder to distinguish between the available
> options.
>
> But what if their language compensated by utilizing features human
> languages don't? Everything I've read on tonal languages stresses that the
> tone profiles depend on the speaker's normal pitch and are not precisely
> defined even in an individual. what if that changed? What if every vowel
> had to be sung, and pitch was phonemic for vowels? I could take a very
> limited number of vowels and distinguish between them by assigning them
> notes. I've read of musical languages that were pure notes, and tonality,
> but never anything in-between.
>
> Unfortunately, several sources I encountered stressed the importance of not
> distinguishing words with vowels alone; that's an inevitable consequence of
> my hypothetical feature. And since I want to be able to pronounce the
> language (and have fictional humans productively approximate it), normal
> human capacities matter.
>
> I realize this would be a challenging feature for humans to learn and use,
> but... just how challenging? How terrible an idea is this, for something
> human beings could learn and use?
>
> Matt G.
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: vowels: five to three?
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 6:14 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Thursday 07 February 2013 17:33:11 BPJ wrote:
> Bábilstuarn
>
> Allir jarðarbúar tiuluðu siumu tungu ug nútuðu siumu
> úrð. Svau bár viað ír hair fluttust að uistan að hair
> fundu laugsliattu í Síníarlandi ug sittust hár að. Hau
> sugðu hair wír viað annan: "Kumum nú ug búum tial
> tígulstaina ug brinnum hau í ildi." Hair nútuðu
> tígulstaina í stáð grjuats ug biak í stáð stainlíms. Og
> hair sugðu: "Kumum nú, biggjum ukkr burg ug tuarn sim
> naui tial hiamins. Hár míð virðum viað frágir in
> tvístrumst ikki um alla jurðina." Hau staig Druttinn
> niaðr tial hiss að sjau burgina ug tuarninn sim minnirnir
> huvðu biggt. Og Druttinn ságði: "Nú íru hair ain hjuað
> ug tála siumu tungu. Hitta ír aðains uppháf hiss sim
> hair muanu táka siar fiarir hindr. Hiar iftir muan ikkirt
> virða haim um mign sim hair átla siar. Stígum nú niaðr
> ug ruglum tungumaul hairra svau að inginn skilji annars
> maul." Og Druttinn tvístraði haim háðan um alla
> jurðina ug hair háttu viað að biggja burgina. Av haim
> siukum haitir hún Bábil að hár ruglaði Druttinn
> tungumaul allrar jarðarinnar ug háðan tvístraði hann
> haim um alla jurðina.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> A collection of the more extreme developments observed
> in outlying Scandinavian dialects applied to create a
> trivocalic language. Can anyone with a knowledge of
> Scandinavian/Norse spot the twists? There are no
> grammatical changes For convenience I started from a
> modern Icelandic text with the most glaring
> innovations removed.
Wow! A plausible-looking North Germanic language with just three
vowel qualities! This could be a nice lostlang, perhaps spoken
somewhere on the coast of northeastern North America as a survival
of Vinlandic.
--
... 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 (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Re: Arabic Transliteration (Was: Not really a conlang...)
Posted by: "Jeffrey Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 9:32 am ((PST))
J�rg Rhiemeier said:
> On Monday 04 February 2013 22:00:52 Jeffrey Brown wrote:
> > J�rg Rhiemeier said:
> >
> > > And for Arabic, we have a pretty serviceable transcription
> > > system developed by the Deutsche Morgenl�ndische Gesellschaft,
> > > which is in international use. There really is no good reason,
> > > in these days of most computers being capable of handling the
> > > required diacritics, not to use that for a morphologically
> > > simplified Arabic.
> >
> > Yeah, the orthography of Sim-Arabic is sort of ugly. DIN 31635 (the
> > transliteration standard of the Deutsche Morgenl�ndische Gesellschaft)
is a
> > lot prettier - but it is not easier to use. It needs the following
> > diacritics: macron above, macron below, dot above, dot below, caron
above,
> > breve below - and these special characters: right half ring, left half
> > ring. It is a pain in the neck to type.
> Sure, it is not easy to type, so one may want to use something
> different. Maybe like this:
>
> '/^a b t _t ^g .h ^h d _d r z s ^s .s .d .t .z ` .g f q k l m n h w/^u
y/^i
>
> All symbols are derived from the DIN 31635 conventions, and listed
> above in the order of the Arabic abjad. I guess something similar
> has been in use in e-mails among orientalists when diacritics still
> caused problems.
Actually, they use �Bikdash.�
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikdash_Arabic_Transliteration_Rules)
Adnan Majid said:
> If the goal of Jeff and others is just to simplify Arabic without being
> particularly tied down to Arabic's complex phonetics, I wonder whether one
> can use *vowels* to represent different consonants that were originally
> different. Many of the emphatic consonants in Arabic (as well as some
> others) cause the following vowel to become more rounded (is that the
right
> term?) - namely T, Z, S, D, kh, gh, r, and q.
>
> For instance, the verb "dalal" would mean "he showed" while the verb
> ".Dalal" would mean "he erred." Since the "o" vowel isn't usually used in
> Arabic, one could render the the latter as "dolal", differentiating it
from
> "dalal" without having to use any digraphs or diacritics. And it actually
> ends up sounding fairly similar to the original.
It�s not vowel rounding, it�s vowel backing (as Alex Fink said). Anyway, I
am not sure this would make the transliteration (Romanization) scheme
easier.
Jeffrey
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Easy-typing Arabic romanization (was: Not really a conlang...)
Posted by: "Adnan Majid" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 12:01 pm ((PST))
Thanks for your points Stevo and Alex. I don't know much about Maltese, but
the cultural mix is fascinating.
Adnan
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:31:08 -0800, Adnan Majid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Hi everyone,
> >
> >If the goal of Jeff and others is just to simplify Arabic without being
> >particularly tied down to Arabic's complex phonetics, I wonder whether one
> >can use *vowels* to represent different consonants that were originally
> >different. Many of the emphatic consonants in Arabic (as well as some
> >others) cause the following vowel to become more rounded (is that the
> right
> >term?) - namely T, Z, S, D, kh, gh, r, and q.
>
> Rounding is a meaningful phonetic term, but I don't know of an Arabic
> dialect in which rounding is the relevant thing there. Instead, it's
> backing: /a/ is [&] most places, but [A] in the vicinity of this set of
> emphatics and allies.
>
> >For instance, the verb "dalal" would mean "he showed" while the verb
> >".Dalal" would mean "he erred." Since the "o" vowel isn't usually used in
> >Arabic, one could render the the latter as "dolal", differentiating it
> from
> >"dalal" without having to use any digraphs or diacritics. And it actually
> >ends up sounding fairly similar to the original.
>
> You've basically just reinvented Maltese! It collapses emphatic coronals
> with plain ones, but the original Arabic *a is Maltese /a/ in the vicinity
> of the emphatics and /e/ elsewhere.
>
> That's as far as the phonemic splits go in Maltese, but
> cross-linguistically vowel lowering near uvulars and pharyngeals is also
> extremely common. So the sensible way to extend this approach to all the
> original Arabic vowels, I would think, would be *a i u being [A e o] near
> emphatics and [& i u] elsewhere. (Not these strange front rounded things.)
>
> Alex
>
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. OT a bookish question for anyone in the Netherlands
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 2:26 pm ((PST))
Do you know who are good "antiquarian" booksellers who deal in old Dutch stuff
relating to Indonesia? Used to be Ge Nabrink, but they don't seem to have a
website.
I did find this (which is the book I was interested in):
http://www.omero.nl/boeken/a/t/j/atjeschnederlandsch-woordenboek-met-nederlandschatjesch-register-eerste-enige-drukfirst-and-only-edition/
but are there others??
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language familie
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 4:11 pm ((PST))
Hi!
Do you know any "ranking" of the languages and language families that
contributed the most with somewhat internationally recognized
morphemes (including loanwords, roots, preffixes, etc.) ? I mean
something like this (a fast guess to start with):
1. Latin
2. Greek
3. English
4. Arabic
5. French
6. Spanish
7. Japanese
8. Hebrew
9. Persian
10. German
1. Indo-European
2. Afro-Asiatic
3. Altaic
4. Uralic
5. Sino-Tibetan
6. Bantu
7. Dravidian
8. Austronesian
9. Tai-Kadai
10. Tupi-Guarani
Até mais!
Leonardo
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
7b. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
Posted by: "Dustfinger Batailleur" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 4:21 pm ((PST))
I think this is too subjective for any coherent 'international lexicon"
list to be formed.
On 8 February 2013 19:10, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Do you know any "ranking" of the languages and language families that
> contributed the most with somewhat internationally recognized
> morphemes (including loanwords, roots, preffixes, etc.) ? I mean
> something like this (a fast guess to start with):
>
> 1. Latin
> 2. Greek
> 3. English
> 4. Arabic
> 5. French
> 6. Spanish
> 7. Japanese
> 8. Hebrew
> 9. Persian
> 10. German
>
> 1. Indo-European
> 2. Afro-Asiatic
> 3. Altaic
> 4. Uralic
> 5. Sino-Tibetan
> 6. Bantu
> 7. Dravidian
> 8. Austronesian
> 9. Tai-Kadai
> 10. Tupi-Guarani
>
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
7c. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 4:39 pm ((PST))
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:21:43 -0500, Dustfinger Batailleur
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8 February 2013 19:10, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Do you know any "ranking" of the languages and language families that
>> contributed the most with somewhat internationally recognized
>> morphemes (including loanwords, roots, preffixes, etc.)
>
>I think this is too subjective for any coherent 'international lexicon"
>list to be formed.
Naw, I bet you could say something. For instance, you could compute an
approximation, or at least an approximation of a slightly different question --
by going to the World Loanword Database <http://wold.livingsources.org/> and
counting the number of entries each language has there as a donor language.
(There might even be an easy way to do that directly from the website. I
haven't checked.)
Their distinctions among immediate, intermediate, and earlier donors also
reveals an ambiguity in the question: which of these counts for you? For
instance, probably lots of languages have borrowed "television" from English,
but the word was formed in French, from a mixture of Latin and Greek elements;
which of those are you counting?
Alex
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
7d. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 8:25 am ((PST))
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:10:52 -0200
Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you know any "ranking" of the languages and language families that
> contributed the most with somewhat internationally recognized
> morphemes (including loanwords, roots, preffixes, etc.) ? I mean
> something like this (a fast guess to start with):
You can't make an "internationally recognised" loan list, because the
preferred sources depend on language. English and Spanish may name
psychology in Greek, but Japanese and Vietnamese use Chinese roots, and
Burmese, Cambodian, and Thai use Pali.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
7e. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 9:18 am ((PST))
--- On Sat, 2/9/13, David McCann <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:10:52 -0200
Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you know any "ranking" of the languages and language families that
> contributed the most with somewhat internationally recognized
> morphemes (including loanwords, roots, preffixes, etc.) ? I mean
> something like this (a fast guess to start with):
You can't make an "internationally recognised" loan list, because the
preferred sources depend on language. English and Spanish may name
psychology in Greek, but Japanese and Vietnamese use Chinese roots, and
Burmese, Cambodian, and Thai use Pali.
====================================================
Right you are.
Probably one of the few truly international words is "telephone" in its various
incarnations (Indonesian telpon, most likely via Dutch). I don't think
"fernsprecher" ever caught on in German, but who knows.
There are quite a few Arabic words in European languages, alcohol, algebra,
cotton (I think), maybe "soap"? Spanish is full of Arabic words, as is
Indonesian (not all in the religious area, e.g. pikir 'to think', perlu 'to
need'. Indo. also has lots of Sanskrit (or at least "indic") words, mostly via
Old Javanese I suspect. "Zen" AIUI is < Chinese but ult. < Skt. dhyana.
English of course is notorious: ketchup/catsup < either Malay or the original
Chinese; pajama/pyjama < Hindi I think; ditto bungalow. And all the tele-,
psych- words. Years ago, when for some reason or other I read the horrible
tabloid Toronto Star (??), they used the word "qadi" for "judge". That puzzled
me until I realized it's the same as Span alcalde 'mayor', Arab. (kq?)ad.i
(that "emphatic d." also accounts for the -rl- in Indo. perlu, usually said to
be < Arab. fad.l- or somesuch.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
7f. Re: THEORY: Morpheme exportation champion languages and language fam
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 9:29 am ((PST))
Actually a mixture of Sanskrit and Pali much like European languages use
a mixture of Greek and Latin, but they are phonologically adapted to the
recipient languages so it doesn't make a lot of difference. Also you have
the many languages which borrow from Arabic. Turkic and Pakistanian (not a
genetic term :) languages have lots of loans from Persian too. Then there
is Slavic languages which borrow from Church Slavic much like Romance
borrows from Latin. You could probably make a list of the top ten donor
languages worldwide but you'll find that their impact is limited by region
and religion. Hindi and Urdu are the same base language but the one
literary language borrows from Sanskrit and the other from Persian/Arabic.
Also you have to decide what is a loan. Tibetan has few direct loans but
lots of calques from Sanskrit, and much the same is true of Chinese
Buddhist texts. Then Mongolian borrowed directly from Tibetan and Japanese,
Korean and Vietnamese directly from Chinese.
/bpj
Den lördagen den 9:e februari 2013 skrev David McCann:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:10:52 -0200
> Leonardo Castro <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Do you know any "ranking" of the languages and language families that
> > contributed the most with somewhat internationally recognized
> > morphemes (including loanwords, roots, preffixes, etc.) ? I mean
> > something like this (a fast guess to start with):
>
> You can't make an "internationally recognised" loan list, because the
> preferred sources depend on language. English and Spanish may name
> psychology in Greek, but Japanese and Vietnamese use Chinese roots, and
> Burmese, Cambodian, and Thai use Pali.
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. Consonants in Jarda and Proto-Jardic
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 8:42 pm ((PST))
I'll get back to the Jarda vowels after I have a better idea about how
the consonants changed from Proto-Jardic to Jarda. Basically consonants
were palatalized before /i/ and labialized before /u/. (If there was /ü/
at that time, it might have palatalized some consonants and labialized
others, but I think /ü/ came later from /iu/ or /ui/.)
Velar and alveolar consonants (except for /r/, /ɬ/, /ɮ/) were affected
by palatalization. (It's possible that Proto-Jarda didn't have /ɬ/ and
/ɮ/ to begin with.)
*n > ņ [ɲ]
*t > ? (maybe č > ś or ķ)
*d > ? (maybe ǰ > ź or ģ)
*s > ś [ɕ]
*z > ź [ʑ]
*l > ļ [ʎ]
*k > ķ [c]
*g > ģ [ɟ]
*x > [ç] > j
*ğ > j
One mystery is the origin of the initial clusters /śl/ /śṛ/ /źl/ /źṛ/ in
Jarda. It's possible that they come from palatalization of *sl, *sṛ,
*zl, *zṛ before /i/, but then what happened to *kl, *kṛ, *gl, *gṛ? You
don't find /cl/, /cɻ/, /ɟl/, /ɟɻ/ in Jarda.
Labialization affected labiodental and velar fricatives, and possibly ṛ
/ɻ/. That /ɻ/ is an oddball consonant in Jarda. Maybe Proto-Jardic had a
whole series of other retroflex consonants like /ʈ/, /ɖ/, and /ɭ/.
*f > [ʍ] > w
*v > w
*ṛ > w ?
*x > [ʍ] > w
*ğ > w
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
8b. Re: Consonants in Jarda and Proto-Jardic
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 5:30 am ((PST))
On 2013-02-09 05:42, Herman Miller wrote:
> I'll get back to the Jarda vowels after I have a better idea about
> how the consonants changed from Proto-Jardic to Jarda. Basically
> consonants were palatalized before /i/ and labialized before /u/.
> (If there was /ü/ at that time, it might have palatalized some
> consonants and labialized others, but I think /ü/ came later from
> /iu/ or /ui/.)
>
> Velar and alveolar consonants (except for /r/, /ɬ/, /ɮ/) were
> affected by palatalization. (It's possible that Proto-Jarda didn't
> have /ɬ/ and /ɮ/ to begin with.)
>
> *n > ņ [ɲ]
> *t > ? (maybe č > ś or ķ)
> *d > ? (maybe ǰ > ź or ģ)
Palatalized [tʲ], [dʲ] are often realized as [tsʲ]ˌ [dzʲ]
(this is the case in Russian for example) and then can
become [ts], [dz] (Romance, e.g. Italian where TJ > /ts/
but CJ > /tʃ/) which then of course can easily become
[s], [z] (French). In (northern) Spanish they became
[t̻s̻]ˌ [d̻z̻] > [s̻]ˌ [z̻] > [s̻] > [θ]ˌ all the while remaining
distinct from [s̺]ˌ [z̺] < S. IIRC you have [ts], [dz] in
Jarda and this could be one source for them.
> *s > ś [ɕ]
> *z > ź [ʑ]
> *l > ļ [ʎ]
> *k > ķ [c]
> *g > ģ [ɟ]
> *x > [ç] > j
> *ğ > j
>
> One mystery is the origin of the initial clusters /śl/ /śṛ/ /źl/
> /źṛ/ in Jarda. It's possible that they come from palatalization of
> *sl, *sṛ, *zl, *zṛ before /i/, but then what happened to *kl, *kṛ,
> *gl, *gṛ? You don't find /cl/, /cɻ/, /ɟl/, /ɟɻ/ in Jarda.
Maybe */cl/ > /śl/ etc. or else /cl/ etc. merge with
/tl/ etc. if these exist; cf. English where /tr/, /dr/
are often [tʃɹ], [dʒɹ] or even [ʈʂ], [ɖʐ]. Chances are
likely that /c/, /ɟ/ are actually alveopalatal, i.e.
what Sino-Tibetanists would write as ȶ ȡ! AFMOC
Sohlob has /ȶɕ/, /ȡʑ/~[ʑ], /ɕ/ and {/ɕt/, /ȶɕt/, /sȶɕ/},
{/ȡʑd/, /zȡʑ/} are realized as [ɕȶ], [ʑȡ], which I
transcribe _çt, jd_ -- you will remember that I have
qualms about word-initial _jd_ in Cidilib. The area
where Cidilib is spoken is [dɮɒˈfiɕȶir] 'Içtir Mountains'
BTW, where /dlof/ is the reflex of _*gryafu_.
>
> Labialization affected labiodental and velar fricatives, and
> possibly ṛ /ɻ/. That /ɻ/ is an oddball consonant in Jarda. Maybe
> Proto-Jardic had a whole series of other retroflex consonants like
> /ʈ/, /ɖ/, and /ɭ/.
Intervocalic [ʈ]ˌ [ɖ] easily become [ɽ], whence I guess [ɻ] is
a small step. [ɭ] easily becomes [l] e.g. in Middle IndoAryan,
and many Swedish speakers who otherwise have /rt/ [ʈ] etc.
have /rl/ [rl] or [l]. I belong to the [l] camp myself.
It might be harder to get rid of [ɳ]. In IndoAryan it
omewhat surprisingly becomes [ɽ̃], though IIRC [n] also
occurs, so Jardic [ɳ] could conceivably end up as [ɻ]!
>
> *f > [ʍ] > w
> *v > w
> *ṛ > w ?
> *x > [ʍ] > w
> *ğ > w
The spontaneous voicing of [ʍ] seems OK but [ç] > [j]
somehow rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather expect
[ç] > [h], at least word initially. I'm clearly
influenced by Sohlob here, though!
/bpj
Messages in this topic (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
