Re: Rough sketch of Lune^
| From: | Grandsire, C.A. <grandsir@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, October 15, 1999, 8:20 |
|---|
Nik Taylor wrote:
>
> Here's a rough sketch of an early stage of Lune^, I'd welcome comments,
> critiques, etc.
>
"I like it" will be my first comment :) . But now, let's see more
constructive comments.
> Provisional phonology
> A = /A/
> A` = /a/
> B = /v/
> Bb = /b/ (only in borrowings)
> C = /tS/
> D = /z/ < /D/
> Dd = /d/
> E = /e/
> E` = /E/
> F = /f/
> G = /G/
> Gg = /g/
> I = /i/
> J = /x/ or /h/
> {h} is sometimes used instead of {j}
> K = /k/
> Note: may make {c} = /k/, and {ch} = /tS/
If the language is mainly evolved Spanish, you should make {c}: /k/ and
{ch}: /tS/. But if you're are thinking of an influence of Esperanto (and
maybe Italian), the value {c}: /tS/ is perfectly possible, especially
since {c} has already two values in present Spanish.
> L = /l/
> M = /m/
> N = /n/
> N~ = /nj/, /J/ also exists in a few conservative dialects
> O = /o/
> O` = /O/
> P = /p/
> R = /r/, trilled r
> S = /s/
> T = /t/
> U = /u/
> W = /w/
> Y = [j\] intervocalically or word-initially (later merged with /zj/ as
> /Z/), [j] elsewhere
> When a vowel with a grave is stressed, the grave is replaced by
> circumflex, as in the name Lune^
>
> Nouns
> No gender
> Definite article: invariant _la_ (or perhaps I should stick with _e`l_?
> I was considering that Esperanto was an influence, presumably they'd
> associate _la_ with their own _la_?)
Why not "la" for words beginning by a consonnant and "e`l" (or "l'") for
words beginning by a vowel? It would show an Esperanto influence and
would correspond to current Spanish use of "el" in front of feminine
words beginning with a vowel ("el agua, las aguas" for example).
> Pluralization: Sound changes
> a -> a`
> e -> e`
> o -> o`
> Consonant-stems add e` (/E/), and change the vowels the reverse of the
> preceding, e.g.:
> nasyo^n -> nasyone`, but perhaps the singular's vowel should be
> preserved, thus
> nasyo^n -> nasyo^ne`
Why not making a dialectical feature of it? Both seem very reasonnable
for me and I think I would articulate both depending on the conditions
of speaking.
> Case
> Accusative marked with preposition _a_ (extended use of "personal a")
> Dative indicated by _pa_ (from the colloquial pa', i.e., para, "for")
>
> Adjective
> No agreement? Possibly number agreement, undecided
>
> Verbs
> Infinitive/Present: -a, -e (infinitive lost, taken over by present)
> Past participle: -ao, -io (-io is pronounced as two vowels, /'i.o/)
> Present participle: -ano, -yeno
> Future: Ba (/vA/) + infinitive
> Past: a + past participle
> Perfects formed from verb _a_ (<haber) + past participle
> Progressives formed from verb _e`ta'_ (<esta') + present participle
> Passive formed from verb _e`ta'_ + past participle
> As you can see, future and past inflections were lost, and were taken
> over by the _ir a_ and present perfect constructions respectively.
> _ser_ was lost
> All forms of _e`ta'_ sometimes lose first syllable (i.e., 'ta, 'tao,
> 'tano instead of e`ta', e`tao, e`tano).
> Note: epenthetic _j-_ added to verbs beginning with _a_ when preceded by
> ba, a, or e`ta', thus:
> yo ba j-ama (remember {j} = /h/) = I will love
> Also
> Yo ba j-a j-amao = I will have loved, also added to accusative particle
> _a_, when following an -a verb thus:
> yo ba j-ama j-a Wanita = I will love Juanita
>
I like it. The subjunctive and the conditional have disappeared?
--
Christophe Grandsire
Philips Research Laboratories -- Building WB 145
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AA Eindhoven
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-40-27-45006
E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com