Talk:Kijeb (Sohlob): Difference between revisions
From FrathWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Talk:Sohlob/Kijeb moved to Talk:Kijeb (Sohlob)) |
(→Pre-Kiijeb shortening/monophthongization: new section) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== 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!
- How long could verbal complexes be?
- 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.
- What about nominals with derivational suffixes?
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.