User:Ceige/Ceigean Afroasiatic: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|name = CJ-Afroasiatic <sup><small>(jokingly)</small></sup> | |name = CJ-Afroasiatic <sup><small>(jokingly)</small></sup> | ||
|nativename = 𐤔𐤌𐤉𐤕 / ⵙⵎⵉⵜ / (ta)Šimiyata | |nativename = 𐤔𐤌𐤉𐤕 / ⵙⵎⵉⵜ / (ta)Šimiyata | ||
|pronunciation = | |pronunciation = simijata | ||
| | |setting = Africa | ||
|date = Yonks ago | |date = Yonks ago | ||
|familycolor = Afroasiatic | |familycolor = Afroasiatic | ||
|ancestor = Early Proto-Afroasiatic | |ancestor = Early Proto-Afroasiatic | ||
| | |script1 = Latn | ||
| | |script2 = Phnx | ||
|script3 = Egyp | |||
|script4 = Tfng | |||
|creator = User:Ceige | |||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 100: | Line 99: | ||
|AdjComparative= 0 | |AdjComparative= 0 | ||
|AdjSuperlative= 0 | |AdjSuperlative= 0 | ||
|Supine= 0 | |Supine= 0 | ||
|Gerund=50 | |Gerund=50 | ||
| Line 159: | Line 157: | ||
There appears to be no stable system of making plurals. Egyptian appears to use -w and -wt for its external plural markers. Semitic appears to use vowel lengthening instead. Internal (vowel-grade) plural marking seems to orient around making the noun look different in whatever easy way is possible, at least in some cases. | There appears to be no stable system of making plurals. Egyptian appears to use -w and -wt for its external plural markers. Semitic appears to use vowel lengthening instead. Internal (vowel-grade) plural marking seems to orient around making the noun look different in whatever easy way is possible, at least in some cases. | ||
[http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/plural-formations-of-proto-berber.html Berber nouns] appear comparitively neat when it comes to vowel alterations however, and the -n- marker appears to have [http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/proto-semitic-case-system-2.html some parallels (at a glance) in Arabic]. Since we're doing this for conlanging, and not proper reconstruction purposes, let's just assume that -n- was used in plural formation, alongside appropriate vowel shifts. | [http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/plural-formations-of-proto-berber.html Berber nouns] appear comparitively neat when it comes to vowel alterations however, and the -n- marker appears to have [http://phoenixblog.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/proto-semitic-case-system-2.html some parallels (at a glance) in Arabic]. Since we're doing this for conlanging, and not proper reconstruction purposes, let's just assume that -n- was used in some plural formation, alongside appropriate vowel shifts. Another thing worthy of note: feminine -t- appears to be dropped in some plural constructions (both broken and affixed). | ||
In the following tables, e/ə = a short vowel. ə in many cases may become /u/, /i/ or /a/ (conditions not known yet). External plural marker seem to possess some concatenating abilities. Depending on the source language, I'll use é and è to indicate if it tends to /i/ or /u/ respectively. In both the Berber and Arabic derived parts, there appears to be a tendency for u/a > u, but i > i, when vowel reductions occur in some cases, but other times this doesn't happen. | In the following tables, e/ə = a short vowel. ə in many cases may become /u/, /i/ or /a/ (conditions not known yet). External plural marker seem to possess some concatenating abilities. Depending on the source language, I'll use é and è to indicate if it tends to /i/ or /u/ respectively. In both the Berber and Arabic derived parts, there appears to be a tendency for u/a > u, but i > i, when vowel reductions occur in some cases, but other times this doesn't happen. | ||
| Line 330: | Line 328: | ||
[[Category:Reconstruction]] | [[Category:Reconstruction]] | ||
[[Category:Afroasiatic languages]] | [[Category:Afroasiatic languages]] | ||