The CBB

I'm mutating all <th>s [T]s in my Faux Greek&Anatolian into <t>s [t]s...and I was contemplating turning all <pn>s* and <pt>s into <t>s as well.

(or should I turn <pn> and <pt> into <th> [T] instead?)

thank you.



* = I got the <pn>s from Carian, not Greek...names like <Pneith>

Keenir2 wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 00:45 I'm mutating all <th>s [T]s in my Faux Greek&Anatolian into <t>s [t]s...and I was contemplating turning all <pn>s* and <pt>s into <t>s as well.

(or should I turn <pn> and <pt> into <th> [T] instead?)

thank you.



* = I got the <pn>s from Carian, not Greek...names like <Pneith>

Maybe you could get [θ] from [pt] through a stage like [pt] -> [ft] -> [ʰt] -> [θ], otherwise I would not overload the language with [t]s.

I'm spirantizing intervocalically, but [θ] needs to go. How? The second is tempting because fewer consonants drop out, but is it as weirdly unnatural as I think it is?

Geminates are shortening with compensatory lengthening of the previous vowel as usual.

t tt → θ t → h t → ∅ t / V_V
s ss → h s → ∅ s / V_V

or

t tt → θ t → s t / V_V
s ss → r ss / V_V

tseren wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 01:43 but [θ] needs to go.

Alas…

tseren wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 01:43 t tt → θ t → h t → ∅ t / V_V
s ss → h s → ∅ s / V_V

No problems here. θ (> s) > h > Ø is totally reasonable, if you ask me.

tseren wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 01:43 t tt → θ t → s t / V_V
s ss → r ss / V_V

s (> z) > r doesn't feel weird to me either, especially not intervocalically.

I think that ss would be likely to shorten, especially since s no longer exists intervocalically, and tt shortens. However, I don't think it's too glaringly unnatural to leave it as a geminate, and there's probably some natlang precedent out there that I don't know about.

tseren wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 01:43 I'm spirantizing intervocalically, but [θ] needs to go. How? The second is tempting because fewer consonants drop out, but is it as weirdly unnatural as I think it is?

t tt → θ t → h t → ∅ t / V_V
s ss → h s → ∅ s / V_V

or

t tt → θ t → s t / V_V
s ss → r ss / V_V[/quote]

if I'm reading these right...
tott -> thot ->hot -> ot
vs
tott -> thot -> sot

soss -> hos -> os
vs
soss -> ross

my first thought is that I like the second row's second option (maybe end with ros instead of ross?), but the first option for the first row (good ol ot )....but if its a package deal, then the second set (sot and ross, though I stand by my suggestion of ros)

hope that helps at least a little

Ælfwine wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 00:56

Keenir2 wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 00:45* = I got the <pn>s from Carian, not Greek...names like <Pneith>

Maybe you could get [θ] from [pt] through a stage like [pt] -> [ft] -> [ʰt] -> [θ], otherwise I would not overload the language with [t]s.

makes sense; don't want to have too many phrases like "Praise Te Great TeoTanatos Teit!" :)


seriously, thank you.


(from theo-thanatos = god-death)

Keenir2 wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 02:29 if I'm reading these right...
tott -> thot ->hot -> ot
vs
tott -> thot -> sot

soss -> hos -> os
vs
soss -> ross

Aren't the changes just intervocalic, though?

In respect of morphosyntax...I guess I need to try an open pronominal system based on social relationship and something like, as in Japanese, Korean and Southeast Asian languages...

k1234567890y wrote: ↑11 Aug 2018 07:22 In respect of morphosyntax...I guess I need to try an open pronominal system based on social relationship and something like, as in Japanese, Korean and Southeast Asian languages...

If you're only considering this because you feel like you need to, then I'd recommend not doing it. But if you genuinely want to do it, then go for it!

shimobaatar wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 01:58

tseren wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 01:43 but [θ] needs to go.

Alas…

tseren wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 01:43 t tt → θ t → h t → ∅ t / V_V
s ss → h s → ∅ s / V_V

No problems here. θ (> s) > h > Ø is totally reasonable, if you ask me.

tseren wrote: ↑10 Aug 2018 01:43 t tt → θ t → s t / V_V
s ss → r ss / V_V

s (> z) > r doesn't feel weird to me either, especially not intervocalically.

I think that ss would be likely to shorten, especially since s no longer exists intervocalically, and tt shortens. However, I don't think it's too glaringly unnatural to leave it as a geminate, and there's probably some natlang precedent out there that I don't know about.

I know that the first set, with t → ∅, is the tried and true. My worry with option 2 is that an intervocalic t → θ → s doesn't seem to have any natlang precedent I can find. That worries me for some reason. It makes me think my logic is off. Still, it's tempting to not throw out so many consonants. Some homophones are fine, but I don't want a language of them.

You're right about the geminate ss. I'm considering reversing the order on that one to leave s from t,
s ss → r ss / V_V
t tt → θ t → s t / V_V

tseren wrote: ↑11 Aug 2018 23:29 I know that the first set, with t → ∅, is the tried and true. My worry with option 2 is that an intervocalic t → θ → s doesn't seem to have any natlang precedent I can find. That worries me for some reason. It makes me think my logic is off. Still, it's tempting to not throw out so many consonants. Some homophones are fine, but I don't want a language of them.

Well, t → θ is attested intervocalically, right? And θ → s isn't unusual in any position, I'd say. I don't think you have anything to worry about on that front.

[ls sl → rs sr → ʂ͡ɽ]
[lz zl → rz zr → ʐ͡ɽ]

I think to introduce preposition stranding to Town Speech-Plattdytch, should I?

yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑12 Aug 2018 01:47 [ls sl → rs sr → ʂ͡ɽ]
[lz zl → rz zr → ʐ͡ɽ]

maybe yes?

yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑12 Aug 2018 01:47 [ls sl → rs sr → ʂ͡ɽ]
[lz zl → rz zr → ʐ͡ɽ]

I feel like [ɽʂ] and [ɽʐ] iss more likely. Faroese retroflexes its consonants similarly, where [ɹ] becomes [ɻ] and retroflexes a following consonant as well.

Yesterday, while researching Indo-European, I decided to rethink the way that Pinault's law and laryngeal vocalization will interact in Tewanian.

At first, I thought I simply wouldn't include Pinault's law in my conlang since it shows multiple exceptions in Greek and Latin. Later, I found out that these apparent exceptions could be explained through analogical leveling - apparently, in verbs, the reflex of vocalized laryngeals (*e, *a*, *o in Greek, *a in Latin) was reintroduced before the suffix *-ye- through analogy with forms derived by other consonantal suffixed such as *-tro-.

I had decided that in Tewanian the result of laryngeal vocalization would be /i(ː)/ before PIE. *y and /a(ː)/ otherwise, which would result in these verbs joining the "i-conjugation":


PIE. *stenh2yeti "it thunders", *stenh2dhlom "thunder" > PTw. *steni(ˑ)yeti, *stenadlun


However, with the new understanding of Pinault's law, it is possible (maybe even probable) that the analogical leveling takes place after the vocalized laryngeal had already become /a(ː)/:


PIE. *stenh2yeti, *stenh2dhlom > post-PIE. *stenyeti, *stenadhlom > PTw. *stenayeti, *stenadlun


This would result in these verbs joining the "a-conjugation", which is what they did in Latin, and Proto-Tewanian would loose a bit of it's uniqueness - it is still possible to have these verbs join the "i-conjugation", but that would require 1. a very early reintoduction of the vocalized laryngeal before the suffix *-ye- and 2. multiple rounds of analogical leveling between different verb stems, namely the present and the participle, and I don't like this analogical ping-pong :


*stenh2yeti, *stenh2to- > *stenyeti, *stenəto- > *stenəyeti, *stenəto- (participle influences present) > *steniyeti, *stenəto- > *steniyeti, *stenito- (present influences participle)


What should I do?

I realize I'm quite late responding to this, but in case this question is still relevant to you, I'd recommend having verbs like these become part of the a-conjugation, although I do understand the appeal of uniqueness.

(Post #10200.)

A paragraph from the Wikipedia page on the Principality of Lower Pannonia:

In the summer of 867, Kocel provided short-term hospitality to brothers Cyril and Methodius on their way from Great Moravia to the pope in Rome to justify the use of the Slavic language as a liturgical language. They and their disciples turned Blatnograd into one of the centers that spread the knowledge of the new Slavonic script (Glagolitic alphabet) and literature, educating numerous future missionaries in their native language.

Yay or Nay: Pannonian Slavic will preserve the use of the Glagolitic alphabet in this alternative timeline.

@ shimo: Thank's for your input, since Proto-Tewanian is undergoing an unexpected revision atm. I'm currently inclined to decide the outcome on a word-to-word basis (simulating messy analogical changes), but having irregularities be concentrated in the a-conjugation is appealing, since it is otherwise the most regular of all conjugations.

@ Ælfwine: I say yay, at least until the invention of printing.

Zekoslav wrote: ↑25 Sep 2018 20:52 @ Ælfwine: I say yay, at least until the invention of printing.

I imagine it could still be used for liturgical purposes, hmm?

Ælfwine wrote: ↑25 Sep 2018 23:22 I imagine it could still be used for liturgical purposes, hmm?

Yes, that would work great!