Talk:Kijeb (Sohlob): Difference between revisions

From FrathWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Talk:Kijeb moved to Kijeb/sandhi: Not really talk...)
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[Kijeb/sandhi]]
== Pre-Kiijeb shortening/monophthongization ==
 
Note to self:
 
=== Monophthongization ===
 
In fact only rising diphthongs were monophthongized:
 
* {i,e} > y / _V
* {u,o} > w / _V
 
=== Syncope/Apocope ===
 
Later short unstressed vowels in fully unstressed syllables were lost, possibly subject to some restrictions:
 
==== Possible restrictions ====
* Final vowels were preserved in the first round.
* Only odd-numbered vowels counting from the stressed vowel were lost.  However this happens in the transition from K to the later langs, and I don't want to have this same pattern twice!
* Final vowels were lost only if the preceding syllable was unstressed,
** i.e. proparoxytone words were made paroxytone by losing the last syllable if that was short,
** possibly by losing the penultimate if that was short and the ultimate long.
* Clitics were always unstressed.
** This included clitic pronouns on verbs (aargh so Quenya-like, I know! :-/).
** The nominal inversion marker was a clitic but must originally have had a long vowel: ''*yaa''.
* Were PK words root-stressed or something else?
** A Latin-like stress rule?
** Perhaps the fourth from last was stressed if all the three last were short? (The rule falsely attributed to Sanskrit!)
*** How long could verbal complexes be?
**** Perhaps an pro-proparoxytone rule will cover them?
**** In any case the final vowel of a verbal complex was lost while a nominal in the absolutive always ended up ending in a vowel.
***** Was there an absolutive ending "vowel-length"?
***** Beware of inversely copying the Mærik pattern were pre-form nominals ended in short vowels or consonants while pre-form verbs stems ended in long vowels!
** Distinctive stress?
* Did the language tend towards penultimate stress by losing short vowels in syllables after the one after the stressed one?
** What about nominals with derivational suffixes?
*** These may show up as derivation by different final vowels in K.
*** I will have to assume there are nominal absolutives ending in (dental) consonants.
 
=== Shortening ===
 
Later still remaining VV were shortened by losing the first V, e.g.
 
* aa > a
* ae > e
* ai > i
* ao > o
* au > u
 
N.B. there could arise new diphthongs when unstressed {w,y}V syllables lost their vowels in the previous stage, unless yCV > CyV and wCV > CwV already at this stage.
 
=== Loss of mid vowels ===
 
Lastly e > ya and o > wa.

Latest revision as of 06:46, 10 October 2009

Pre-Kiijeb shortening/monophthongization

Note to self:

Monophthongization

In fact only rising diphthongs were monophthongized:

  • {i,e} > y / _V
  • {u,o} > w / _V

Syncope/Apocope

Later short unstressed vowels in fully unstressed syllables were lost, possibly subject to some restrictions:

Possible restrictions

  • Final vowels were preserved in the first round.
  • Only odd-numbered vowels counting from the stressed vowel were lost. However this happens in the transition from K to the later langs, and I don't want to have this same pattern twice!
  • Final vowels were lost only if the preceding syllable was unstressed,
    • i.e. proparoxytone words were made paroxytone by losing the last syllable if that was short,
    • possibly by losing the penultimate if that was short and the ultimate long.
  • Clitics were always unstressed.
    • This included clitic pronouns on verbs (aargh so Quenya-like, I know! :-/).
    • The nominal inversion marker was a clitic but must originally have had a long vowel: *yaa.
  • Were PK words root-stressed or something else?
    • A Latin-like stress rule?
    • Perhaps the fourth from last was stressed if all the three last were short? (The rule falsely attributed to Sanskrit!)
      • How long could verbal complexes be?
        • Perhaps an pro-proparoxytone rule will cover them?
        • In any case the final vowel of a verbal complex was lost while a nominal in the absolutive always ended up ending in a vowel.
          • Was there an absolutive ending "vowel-length"?
          • Beware of inversely copying the Mærik pattern were pre-form nominals ended in short vowels or consonants while pre-form verbs stems ended in long vowels!
    • Distinctive stress?
  • Did the language tend towards penultimate stress by losing short vowels in syllables after the one after the stressed one?
    • What about nominals with derivational suffixes?
      • These may show up as derivation by different final vowels in K.
      • I will have to assume there are nominal absolutives ending in (dental) consonants.

Shortening

Later still remaining VV were shortened by losing the first V, e.g.

  • aa > a
  • ae > e
  • ai > i
  • ao > o
  • au > u

N.B. there could arise new diphthongs when unstressed {w,y}V syllables lost their vowels in the previous stage, unless yCV > CyV and wCV > CwV already at this stage.

Loss of mid vowels

Lastly e > ya and o > wa.