There are 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Tirelat vowels again
From: BPJ
1b. Re: Tirelat vowels again
From: Eugene Oh
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Tirelat vowels again
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:32 pm ((PDT))
> On 3/17/2012 1:15 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo conlangers!
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:48:39 -0400 Herman Miller wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Yes, that's a good point. One option I've been considering is an
> >> original vowel system of /a/ /i/ /u/ /@/, with various splits and
> >> mergers that I haven't worked out. I don't have any particularly good
> >> reason for those four vowels except for symmetry, and the idea that /a/
> >> /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/ is too ordinary of a vowel system.
> >
> > What is wrong with /a e i o u/, except that is has been used so
> > often (including natlangs)? But if you think it is overused,
> > do something different. If you start with /a i u @/, you can
> > first split each of the four vowel phonemes vertically:
> >
> > /a/> /a ~ @1/
> > /i/> /e ~ i/
> > /u/> /o ~ u/
> > /@/> /@2 ~ 1/
> >
> > Then merge /@1/ and /@2/, and you have the 7-vowel system of
> > Tirelat.
>
> I think the split of /i/ > /e ~ i/ and /u/ > /o ~ u/ is along the right
> lines. They could originally have been [i] and [u] in open syllables,
> [e] and [o] in closed syllables. E.g.,
Might the original distinction have been one of length? e ë i
o u y
a 17 12 118 17 77 18
e 1 19 9 11 8
ë 5 0 1 2
i 24 56 15
o 11 7
u 9
>
> *hrik > ŕek "horn"
> *hrika > ŕika "lever"
> (hmm, could a "lever" have had something to do with horns originally?)
>
> *nurgi > norgi "barrel"
> *nuri > nuri "blue"
>
> Then /i/ and /u/ in closed syllables in the modern language would
> originally have had to be in open syllables. If syllable-final /ə/ is
> lost, that could explain the relative uncommonness of /ë/ as well as
> allowing /i/ and /u/ to be in originally open syllables.
>
> *šimë > šim "eye"
>
> I've also been looking at minimal pairs. Here's a summary:
>
> e ë i o u y
> a 17 12 118 17 77 18
> e 1 19 9 11 8
> ë 5 0 1 2
> i 24 56 15
> o 11 7
> u 9
>
> Note the absence of minimal pairs between /ë/ and /o/.
>
The low incidence of ë/y contrasts looks very interesting.
What if /ə/ was originally an allophone of /ɨ/ which became
marginally phonemicized when some instances of /o/ became
/ə/ for whatever cause. Why not have a look at the contexts
where /ə/ and /o/ occur and see if there emerges something
like a pattern? In a large area in Sweden and Norway old
/o/ became /ɞ/. Maybe the same thing happened in Tirelat,
with /ɞ/ later unrounding > /ɜ/. I wonder if you couldn't
nicely account for this distribution as follows:
There originally were two times three vowel phonemes: /i a u/ plus
some kind of strong/weak distinction. _et's assume it was
originally one of length, either from an ancient quantitative
distinction or from open syllable lengthening, but had developed
into one of quality (this is BTW exactly like Persian so far):
i(ː) u(ː)
ɪ > e ʊ > o
æ ɑ(ː)
Next there is a chain shift, starting with /ɑ(ː)/ rounding
and pushing upwards:
ɑ > o > u > ɨ
[æ] > [ä]
Next some instances of /ɨ/ become realized as [ə],
while some instances of /o/ < */ɑ/ become [ɵ]:
/i/ /ɨ/ /u/
/e/ [ə] [ɵ] /o/
/a/
with the phonemicization of /ə/ being a mere matter
of [ɵ] merging with [ə].
The relative infrequency of /ɨ/ is a bit of a problem here.
You mentioned that you at some real time point had _y_ = [y]
and turned some instances of it into /ju/, so perhaps the
fictional time change was a little more complicated:
y > ju
/
u > ʉ > ɨ > ɨ
\
ə
/
ɞ > ɵ
/
ɑ > ɒ > o
The question is what may have conditioned the splits.
Might there have been a lost distinction between
labialized and non-labialized consonants for example?
/bpj
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Tirelat vowels again
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" un.do...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:36 pm ((PDT))
Maybe even that modern p/b developed from old kw/gw, which conditioned the
rounded vowels, where old p/b did not.
2012/3/18 BPJ <b...@melroch.se>
>
> The low incidence of ë/y contrasts looks very interesting.
> What if /ə/ was originally an allophone of /ɨ/ which became
> marginally phonemicized when some instances of /o/ became
> /ə/ for whatever cause. Why not have a look at the contexts
> where /ə/ and /o/ occur and see if there emerges something
> like a pattern? In a large area in Sweden and Norway old
> /o/ became /ɞ/. Maybe the same thing happened in Tirelat,
> with /ɞ/ later unrounding > /ɜ/. I wonder if you couldn't
> nicely account for this distribution as follows:
>
> There originally were two times three vowel phonemes: /i a u/ plus
> some kind of strong/weak distinction. _et's assume it was
> originally one of length, either from an ancient quantitative
> distinction or from open syllable lengthening, but had developed
> into one of quality (this is BTW exactly like Persian so far):
>
> i(ː) u(ː)
>
> ɪ > e ʊ > o
>
> æ ɑ(ː)
>
> Next there is a chain shift, starting with /ɑ(ː)/ rounding
> and pushing upwards:
>
> ɑ > o > u > ɨ
>
> [æ] > [ä]
>
> Next some instances of /ɨ/ become realized as [ə],
> while some instances of /o/ < */ɑ/ become [ɵ]:
>
> /i/ /ɨ/ /u/
>
> /e/ [ə] [ɵ] /o/
>
> /a/
>
> with the phonemicization of /ə/ being a mere matter
> of [ɵ] merging with [ə].
>
> The relative infrequency of /ɨ/ is a bit of a problem here.
> You mentioned that you at some real time point had _y_ = [y]
> and turned some instances of it into /ju/, so perhaps the
> fictional time change was a little more complicated:
>
> y > ju
> /
> u > ʉ > ɨ > ɨ
> \
> ə
> /
> ɞ > ɵ
> /
> ɑ > ɒ > o
>
> The question is what may have conditioned the splits.
> Might there have been a lost distinction between
> labialized and non-labialized consonants for example?
>
> /bpj
>
Messages in this topic (8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
