There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Translations needed
From: Jim Henry
1b. Re: Translations needed
From: Roger Mills
1c. Re: Translations needed
From: Charles W Brickner
1d. Re: Translations needed
From: Charles W Brickner
1e. Re: Translations needed
From: Roger Mills
1f. Re: Translations needed
From: Padraic Brown
1g. Re: Translations needed
From: Douglas Koller
2a. Re: Conlang classification
From: And Rosta
2b. Re: Conlang classification
From: George Corley
2c. Re: Conlang classification
From: And Rosta
2d. Re: Conlang classification
From: George Corley
2e. Re: Conlang classification
From: And Rosta
2f. Re: Conlang classification
From: George Corley
3. Revised Phonology: Na'gifi Fasu'xa
From: Anthony Miles
4. Cases and Declensions: Fortunatian
From: Anthony Miles
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Translations needed
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:06 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Tony Harris <t...@alurhsa.org> wrote:
> I think in Esperanto, for example, I would say something like "Vi uzadas
> tiun vorton. Mi ne pensas ke ĝi signifas tion, kion vi pensas ke ĝi
> signifas." (I might simplify that a bit, that sounds formal, but I
> digress...).
That's good, although I might render it as "Vi daŭre uzas tiun vorton. ...".
In gzb I reckon I would mark continuous aspect on the verb by affixing
the "while, period, time" morpheme to the verb stem, so:
twâ-θy pǒ ĉul-i syj-vĭj-ť-zô.
sentence-element DEM3 performance-at use-period-2-V.ACT
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Translations needed
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:07 pm ((PDT))
--- On Thu, 8/23/12, Charles W Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
"Usando" is the gerund "using."
=========================================================
I suppose in this case, it is acting as a gerund. But it can also be the
present participle, when combined with estar-- Estamos usando piedras para
construir la casa 'We are using stones to build the house." ¿No?
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf
Of taliesin the storyteller
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:16 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Translations needed
On 2012-08-23 19:53, Charles W Brickner wrote:
> I am not a professional translator, but I know that Spanish uses the
> verb 'seguir', follow, with the gerund.
>
> "Tu sigues usando esa palabra. No creo que quiere decir (significa)
> lo que
> (tu) crees que quiere decir (significa)."
"usando", does that mean "to use"? "follow use", iiiiiinteresting...
t.
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Translations needed
Posted by: "Charles W Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:31 pm ((PDT))
Cassell's New Spanish Dictionary, Webster's New World Spanish Dictionary, 501
Spanish Verbs, and Fundamentos de Español (Salas y Salas) call this form the
gerund (gerundio).
Spanish Review Grammar (Spaulding & Leonard) call it the present participle (p.
193). On p. 194 they use the term 'participial adjective' to refer to forms in
-ante, -ente, and -iente.
Please give an example where an infinitive would be used as a gerund and not be
merely a dependent infinitive.
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf
Of MorphemeAddict
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:48 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Translations needed
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Charles W Brickner <
tepeyach...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> "Usando" is the gerund "using."
>
No, it's a present participle. The 'gerund' in Spanish is the infinitive.
stevo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
> On Behalf Of taliesin the storyteller
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:16 PM
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Subject: Re: Translations needed
>
> On 2012-08-23 19:53, Charles W Brickner wrote:
> > I am not a professional translator, but I know that Spanish uses the
> > verb 'seguir', follow, with the gerund.
> >
> > "Tu sigues usando esa palabra. No creo que quiere decir (significa)
> > lo que
> > (tu) crees que quiere decir (significa)."
>
> "usando", does that mean "to use"? "follow use", iiiiiinteresting...
>
>
> t.
>
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Translations needed
Posted by: "Charles W Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:43 pm ((PDT))
Likewise, it seems to that, were the form in -ando, etc., a participle, it
could be used attributively and thus would be declined. This does not happen.
*el llorando muchacho vs. el llorante muchacho
*la lloranda muchacha vs. la llorante muchacho
*los llorandos muchachos vs. los llorantes muchachos
*las llorandas muchachas vs. las llorantes muchachas
I believe that both forms are derived from the Latin present participle in -ns,
-ntis.
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf
Of Charles W Brickner
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:31 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Translations needed
Cassell's New Spanish Dictionary, Webster's New World Spanish Dictionary, 501
Spanish Verbs, and Fundamentos de Español (Salas y Salas) call this form the
gerund (gerundio).
Spanish Review Grammar (Spaulding & Leonard) call it the present participle (p.
193). On p. 194 they use the term 'participial adjective' to refer to forms in
-ante, -ente, and -iente.
Please give an example where an infinitive would be used as a gerund and not be
merely a dependent infinitive.
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf
Of MorphemeAddict
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:48 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Translations needed
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Charles W Brickner <
tepeyach...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> "Usando" is the gerund "using."
>
No, it's a present participle. The 'gerund' in Spanish is the infinitive.
stevo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
> On Behalf Of taliesin the storyteller
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:16 PM
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Subject: Re: Translations needed
>
> On 2012-08-23 19:53, Charles W Brickner wrote:
> > I am not a professional translator, but I know that Spanish uses the
> > verb 'seguir', follow, with the gerund.
> >
> > "Tu sigues usando esa palabra. No creo que quiere decir (significa)
> > lo que
> > (tu) crees que quiere decir (significa)."
>
> "usando", does that mean "to use"? "follow use", iiiiiinteresting...
>
>
> t.
>
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Translations needed
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:06 pm ((PDT))
--- On Thu, 8/23/12, Charles W Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
I believe that both forms are derived from the Latin present participle in -ns,
-ntis.
I wonder.........
......
Cassell's New Spanish Dictionary, Webster's New World Spanish Dictionary, 501
Spanish Verbs, and Fundamentos de Español (Salas y Salas) call this form the
gerund (gerundio).
Spanish Review Grammar (Spaulding & Leonard) call it the present participle (p.
193). On p. 194 they use the term 'participial adjective' to refer to forms in
-ante, -ente, and -iente.
These forms look more like derivations from the Latin pres.part. whereas the
Span. -ando/endo/iendo forms would be from the old Latin gerundive. IIRc, *nt
does not ordinarily > Span /nd/. Cantar, sentar, sentir, etc. Though I think
*-VtV- does > /d/ at least sometimes(?), but I'm not sure.. I'd better check
my copy of Elcock's _Romance Languages_.......:-)))
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Translations needed
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:11 pm ((PDT))
--- On Thu, 8/23/12, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Usando" is the gerund "using."
>
> No, it's a present participle. The 'gerund' in Spanish is
> the infinitive.
I'm sure that the Spanish "gerund" (gerundio) is not the infinitive. It's
also not the present participle.
Spanish has a present participle, in -nte; a past participle, in -do/-da;
a gerundio, in -ndo; and an infinitive in -r. The first two are adjectives,
and as one might expect, attribute the quality of the verbal action to
a noun; the gerundio is an adverb that is used to form periphrastic
tenses; the infinitive is the verbal noun that names the action of the
verb.
Padraic
> stevo
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
> On
> > Behalf Of taliesin the storyteller
> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:16 PM
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> > Subject: Re: Translations needed
> >
> > On 2012-08-23 19:53, Charles W Brickner wrote:
> > > I am not a professional translator, but I know
> that Spanish uses the
> > > verb 'seguir', follow, with the gerund.
> > >
> > > "Tu sigues usando esa palabra. No creo que
> quiere decir (significa)
> > > lo que
> > > (tu) crees que quiere decir (significa)."
> >
> > "usando", does that mean "to use"? "follow use",
> iiiiiinteresting...
> >
> >
> > t.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Translations needed
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" douglaskol...@hotmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:24 pm ((PDT))
> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:31:01 -0400
> From: tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
> Subject: Re: Translations needed
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Please give an example where an infinitive would be used as a gerund and not
> be merely a dependent infinitive.
> Charlie
Ver es creer. (?)
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
> > On Behalf Of taliesin the storyteller
> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:16 PM
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> > Subject: Re: Translations needed
> > On 2012-08-23 19:53, Charles W Brickner wrote:
> > > I am not a professional translator, but I know that Spanish uses the
> > > verb 'seguir', follow, with the gerund.
> > > "Tu sigues usando esa palabra. No creo que quiere decir (significa)
> > > lo que
> > > (tu) crees que quiere decir (significa)."
No creo que quiera decir/signifique ... (?)
I don't know if "...lo que crees que..." would spawn the subjunctive, but my
high school Spanish teacher always said, if you even think you *might* need to
use the subjunctive, use it and you'll be right 95% of the time. So I might
risk it here. :)
Kou
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Conlang classification
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:19 pm ((PDT))
George Corley, On 17/08/2012 18:43:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Padraic Brown wrote:
>
> I'm curious why Brithenig is at the far extreme of the artistic axis. It
> never struck me as particularly artistic in nature, so much as pragmatic.
> It
> was always billed as, and I always appreciated its qualities of, realism
> and pragmatism. As I understood it, Andrew sought to combine imagination
> with theory to produce something that could have existed in the real
> world.
> It was a "thought experiment". For me, it should be far closer to the
> corner
> where Interlingua is, and perhaps should replace it even, given the
> deliberate
> way it was conceived, designed and constructed.
>
> That depends on what you mean by pragmatism. I would define a
> pragmatic conlang as one that hopes to achieve real-world speakers
> and/or is designed for that purpose -- usually auxlangs though some
> loglangs/engelangs may also fit. Brithenig is not intended to be used
> in the real world -- it is simply a thought experiment. It's purpose
> may not be purely aesthetic, but it wasn't made to be practical.
Setting aside Mil's vague "artism:pragmatism" dichotomy, if we apply the
artlang--engelang dichotomy to Brithenig, then it clearly comes out as a
nonprototypical engelang -- nonprototypical because it attempts to faithfully
model a hypothetical natlang rather than to achieve more typical engelangy
goals like being unambiguous. Remember, engelangs have objective goals with
generally convergent solutions; artlangs don't.
Jörg Rhiemeier, On 18/08/2012 21:18:
> a naturalistic engelang would pretty much be a contradiction in
> terms,
Not at all. Naturalism is engelangy, because it is objectively evaluable, and
Brithenig is a good example of a conlang that is entirely naturalistic and
entirely engelinguistic.
Jörg Rhiemeier, On 20/08/2012 15:41:
> So I agree with Padraic that _exolang_ should mean 'language
> of an extraterrestrial intelligent species', and propose the
> wider term _xenolang_ for 'language of non-human beings'.
Is _natlang_ the term for 'language of human beings' (opposite of xenolang) or
for 'uninvented language' (opposite of conlang)? I think the latter, in which
case we could have _conxenolang_:_natxenolang_::_conhomolang_:_nathomolang_.
I would find it usefeul to have a further distinction/dimension of
classification, between languages usable with the human language faculty,
languages usable to some extent by humans but by cognitive brute force rather
than with the language faculty, and languages not at all usable by humans.
Maybe one could pun on _homo_ and have _homolang_:_allolang_:_heterolang_? I
suspect that the interest of some conxenolangs is that they fall outside the
usable-with-human-language-faculty end of the spectrum.
--And.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Conlang classification
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:29 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:19 PM, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Corley, On 17/08/2012 18:43:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Padraic Brown wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious why Brithenig is at the far extreme of the artistic axis.
>> It
>> never struck me as particularly artistic in nature, so much as
>> pragmatic. It
>> was always billed as, and I always appreciated its qualities of,
>> realism
>> and pragmatism. As I understood it, Andrew sought to combine
>> imagination
>> with theory to produce something that could have existed in the real
>> world.
>> It was a "thought experiment". For me, it should be far closer to the
>> corner
>> where Interlingua is, and perhaps should replace it even, given the
>> deliberate
>> way it was conceived, designed and constructed.
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by pragmatism. I would define a
>> pragmatic conlang as one that hopes to achieve real-world speakers
>> and/or is designed for that purpose -- usually auxlangs though some
>> loglangs/engelangs may also fit. Brithenig is not intended to be used
>>
>> in the real world -- it is simply a thought experiment. It's purpose
>> may not be purely aesthetic, but it wasn't made to be practical.
>>
>
> Setting aside Mil's vague "artism:pragmatism" dichotomy, if we apply the
> artlang--engelang dichotomy to Brithenig, then it clearly comes out as a
> nonprototypical engelang -- nonprototypical because it attempts to
> faithfully model a hypothetical natlang rather than to achieve more typical
> engelangy goals like being unambiguous. Remember, engelangs have objective
> goals with generally convergent solutions; artlangs don't.
>
Really? I don't actually find the model all that convincing. There is no
reason to believe that a Latin dialect spoken in Welsh territory would
follow precisely the same sound changes as Welsh. That, IMO, was partly an
artistic decision.
Jörg Rhiemeier, On 20/08/2012 15:41:
>
>> So I agree with Padraic that _exolang_ should mean 'language
>> of an extraterrestrial intelligent species', and propose the
>> wider term _xenolang_ for 'language of non-human beings'.
>>
>
> Is _natlang_ the term for 'language of human beings' (opposite of
> xenolang) or for 'uninvented language' (opposite of conlang)? I think the
> latter, in which case we could have _conxenolang_:_natxenolang_::_**
> conhomolang_:_nathomolang_.
>
I don't see why we would need to have a distinction between natural alien
language and constructed alien languages right at the moment. The fact is,
we don't know of any natural alien languages because we don't know of any
intelligent aliens (or, really any aliens at all, though we _think_ there
are some microbes on Mars), and we have no indication how soon we will have
to deal with intelligent aliens if we ever meet them at all.
I would find it usefeul to have a further distinction/dimension of
> classification, between languages usable with the human language faculty,
> languages usable to some extent by humans but by cognitive brute force
> rather than with the language faculty, and languages not at all usable by
> humans. Maybe one could pun on _homo_ and have
> _homolang_:_allolang_:_**heterolang_?
> I suspect that the interest of some conxenolangs is that they fall outside
> the usable-with-human-language-**faculty end of the spectrum.
I don't know if that pun would really be in good taste.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Conlang classification
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:00 pm ((PDT))
George Corley, On 24/08/2012 01:29:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:19 PM, And Rosta<and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Setting aside Mil's vague "artism:pragmatism" dichotomy, if we apply the
>> artlang--engelang dichotomy to Brithenig, then it clearly comes out as a
>> nonprototypical engelang -- nonprototypical because it attempts to
>> faithfully model a hypothetical natlang rather than to achieve more typical
>> engelangy goals like being unambiguous. Remember, engelangs have objective
>> goals with generally convergent solutions; artlangs don't.
>>
>
> Really? I don't actually find the model all that convincing. There is no
> reason to believe that a Latin dialect spoken in Welsh territory would
> follow precisely the same sound changes as Welsh. That, IMO, was partly an
> artistic decision.
But the design goal, of applying Welsh diachrony to Latin, is an objective one
in that one can objectively evaluate the success of a given solution to it, and
alternate solutions will converge.
> Jörg Rhiemeier, On 20/08/2012 15:41:
>>
>>> So I agree with Padraic that _exolang_ should mean 'language
>>> of an extraterrestrial intelligent species', and propose the
>>> wider term _xenolang_ for 'language of non-human beings'.
>>>
>>
>> Is _natlang_ the term for 'language of human beings' (opposite of
>> xenolang) or for 'uninvented language' (opposite of conlang)? I think the
>> latter, in which case we could have _conxenolang_:_natxenolang_::_**
>> conhomolang_:_nathomolang_.
>
> I don't see why we would need to have a distinction between natural alien
> language and constructed alien languages right at the moment.
Indeed, and in practice we could just say "xenolang" when we mean
"conxenolang", but remembering the distinction between conxenolangs and
natxenolangs would be consistent with the necessary distinction between
conhomolangs and nathomolangs.
> I would find it usefeul to have a further distinction/dimension of
>> classification, between languages usable with the human language faculty,
>> languages usable to some extent by humans but by cognitive brute force
>> rather than with the language faculty, and languages not at all usable by
>> humans. Maybe one could pun on _homo_ and have
>> _homolang_:_allolang_:_**heterolang_?
>> I suspect that the interest of some conxenolangs is that they fall outside
>> the usable-with-human-language-**faculty end of the spectrum.
>
> I don't know if that pun would really be in good taste.
How come? The pun is on Latin _homo_ ('man') and Greek _homo_ ('same'), so a
homolang is a language of Man, and a heterolang is not. I kind of guess if you
question the taste, you find some connection with homosexual and heterosexual
but I don't see how you get from there to questionable taste or to the
human-speakable/human-unspeakable distinction -- aha -- you think the idea is
that hetero is unspeakable (i.e. unspeakably bad)? That's imaginative of you!
Please explain your idea further.
--And.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Conlang classification
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:05 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:00 PM, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How come? The pun is on Latin _homo_ ('man') and Greek _homo_ ('same'), so
> a homolang is a language of Man, and a heterolang is not. I kind of guess
> if you question the taste, you find some connection with homosexual and
> heterosexual but I don't see how you get from there to questionable taste
> or to the human-speakable/human-**unspeakable distinction -- aha -- you
> think the idea is that hetero is unspeakable (i.e. unspeakably bad)? That's
> imaginative of you! Please explain your idea further.
No. Homo ('same') and hetero are now heavily ingrained in the sexual
meanings, as in newer formations like "homophobia", and I'm not sure people
would take to your terms because of that. I did take it as "hetero =
unspeakable", but that's not my objection. Anyway, this discussion skirts
rather close to NCNC (considering it may touch on political correctness),
so that's all I'll say about it.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Conlang classification
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:23 pm ((PDT))
George Corley, On 24/08/2012 02:05:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:00 PM, And Rosta<and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How come? The pun is on Latin _homo_ ('man') and Greek _homo_ ('same'), so
>> a homolang is a language of Man, and a heterolang is not. I kind of guess
>> if you question the taste, you find some connection with homosexual and
>> heterosexual but I don't see how you get from there to questionable taste
>> or to the human-speakable/human-**unspeakable distinction -- aha -- you
>> think the idea is that hetero is unspeakable (i.e. unspeakably bad)? That's
>> imaginative of you! Please explain your idea further.
>
> No. Homo ('same') and hetero are now heavily ingrained in the sexual
> meanings, as in newer formations like "homophobia", and I'm not sure people
> would take to your terms because of that. I did take it as "hetero =
> unspeakable", but that's not my objection.
Surely that objection (namely, that _homo_ and _hetero_ express not only the
same--different distinction (in scientific and technical terminology) but also
the gay--strate distinction (in popular terminology)) is a bit petty,
especially given that _homolang_ and _heterolang_ would be technical terms
within a linguistically sophisticated community. I recognize that you were only
pointing out the possible objection, not actually making it yourself; I'm not
calling you petty.
--And.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Conlang classification
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:01 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:23 PM, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No. Homo ('same') and hetero are now heavily ingrained in the sexual
>> meanings, as in newer formations like "homophobia", and I'm not sure
>> people
>> would take to your terms because of that. I did take it as "hetero =
>> unspeakable", but that's not my objection.
>>
>
> Surely that objection (namely, that _homo_ and _hetero_ express not only
> the same--different distinction (in scientific and technical terminology)
> but also the gay--strate distinction (in popular terminology)) is a bit
> petty, especially given that _homolang_ and _heterolang_ would be technical
> terms within a linguistically sophisticated community. I recognize that you
> were only pointing out the possible objection, not actually making it
> yourself; I'm not calling you petty.
You might consider it petty, but since we're making new terms here, in
addition to having potential political correctness concerns, _heterolang_
really doesn't suggest the meaning of "not learnable by humans" with out
use of the pun mnemonic, which strikes me as somewhat frivolous.
Unfortunately, the best prefix would be xeno-, but most people hear define
xenolang in a way that doesn't preclude human learnability.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Revised Phonology: Na'gifi Fasu'xa
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" mamercu...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:10 pm ((PDT))
Comments? Adjustments?
=Phonology Revision=
=Allophones=
If Na'ŋifi Fasu'xa had not already possessed an simple orthography, the
phonetic transcription would be quite different. A dearth of phonemes indicates
a wealth of allophones.
/n/ [n] becomes [l] before a following consonant
/antufi/ [ɔl.tu.'fi']
/m/ [m] becomes a homorganic nasal [m], [n], or [ŋ] before a following
consonant.
/ta'amxi/ ['tɛ':ŋ.hi]
/ŋ/ becomes [ʔ] in word-initial position, but remains /ŋ/ elsewhere.
/ŋa'sinu/ ['ʔɛ'.zi.nu]
/na'ŋifi/ ['nɛ'.ŋi.vi]
/x/ [x] becones [h] before or after any consonant except /x/
/xiupxa/ ['hjo'p.ha]
Voiceless consonants (i.e., everything except the nasals) becomes voiced
following a voiced consonant (i.e., a nasal).
/a'tmaxi/ ['a'd.mɛ.γi]
Voiceless consonants become voiced between vowels, if they follow the accented
syllable.
/a'tmaxi/ ['a'd.mɛ.γi]
/atmaxi'/ [ad.mɛ.'xi']
/na'ŋifi fasu'xa/ ['nɛ'.ŋi.vi fɔ.'so'.γa]
==Vowel Patterns==
Although Na'ŋifi Fasu'xa appears to have only three vowels, the interactions
between them have created unique bivocalic and trivocalic patterns. These are
laid out below - the first set of vowel indicates the orthography, the second
the pronunciation.
Vowel patterns
Bivocalic:
a i > ɛ i
a u > ɔ u
i a > e a
i i > i i
i u > i u
u a > o a
u i > u i
u u > u u
Trivocalic:
a a a > a a a
a a i > a ɛ i
a a u > a ɔ u
a i a > ɛ e a
a i i > ɛ i i
a i u > ɛ i u
a u a > ɔ o a
a u i > ɔ u i
a u u > ɔ u u
i a a > e a a
i a i > e ɛ i
i a u > e ɔ u
i i a > i e a
i i i > i i i
i i u > i u u
u a a > o a a
u a i > o ɛ i
u a u > o ɔ u
u i a > u e a
u i i > u i i
u i u > u i u
u u a > u o a
u u i > u u i
u u u > u u u
Should I add u i > ɯ i and i u > y u to this mix?
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Cases and Declensions: Fortunatian
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" mamercu...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:40 pm ((PDT))
I'm sure many of you remember Fortunatian: here's the retooling of the case and
declension system in the light of Berber (I never did like the endings -ync
-onc -oc!):
=Cases and Declensions=
Proto-Fortunatian, the stage that set off Fortunatian from the Latin, reduced
the Latin cases and declensions to two cases (nominative and accusative) and
three declensions (1st declension feminine, 2nd declension masculine and
neuter, and 3rd declension). The complete elision of the accusative singular
endings in -m changed the nominative-accusative system into a
'marked-nominative' system in all declensions except the 2nd declension neuter,
which was unmarked for case in both singular and plural. The 3rd declension
also lacked a case distinction in the plural. Under other circumstances, the
instability of such a system and the contribution of Etruscan-speakers to
Proto-Fortunatian would suggest a sudden collapse into a system of no cases
whatsoever. The Proto-Fortunatian speakers, however, contained a large number
of Guanche converts, whose native Berber tongue not only contributed much
vocabulary, but also pushed the marked-nominative system into a true
nominative-absolutive system. Guanche also contributed to the shift from
Latin's SOV order to Proto-Fortunatian's dominant VSO, but that is not the
subject of this section.
1fem
NomSg -a
AccSg -#
NomPl -e
AccPl -aʃ
2masc
NomSg -ɨʃ
AccSg -#
NomPl -i
AccPl -oʃ
2neuter
Sg -#
Pl -a
3epicene
NomSg -s, -ʃ
AccSg -#
Pl -eʃ
In the next stage, from Proto-Fortunatian to First Stage Pre-Fortunatian, the
2nd declension neuters were redistributed to the 2nd declension masculines and
1st declension feminines:
1fem
NomSg -a
AccSg -#
NomPl -e
AccPl -aʃ
2masc
NomSg -ɨʃ
AccSg -#
NomPl -i
AccPl -oʃ
3epicene
NomSg -s, -ʃ
AccSg -#
Pl -eʃ
In the next stage, from 1st Stage Pre-Fortunatian to 2nd Stage Pre-Fortunatian,
the 3rd declension nouns were redistributed between the 1st and 2nd
declensions. Now the declensional system of Early Fortunatian matched the
male-female dichotomy of the Berber languages:
1fem
NomSg -a
AccSg -#
NomPl -e
AccPl -aʃ
2masc
NomSg -ɨʃ
AccSg -#
NomPl -i
AccPl -oʃ
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
