870
edits
User:Ceige/Ceigean Afroasiatic: Difference between revisions
User:Ceige/Ceigean Afroasiatic (view source)
Revision as of 15:11, 28 January 2015
, 28 January 2015no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
[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 plural formation, alongside appropriate vowel shifts. | ||
In the following | 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. | ||
{| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="graytable lightgraybg" style="width: 700px; text-align:center;"| | {| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="graytable lightgraybg" style="width: 700px; text-align:center;"| | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
!Alternative | !Alternative | ||
|- | |- | ||
!External #1 | |||
|ROOT- > ROOT-ən- | |ROOT- > ROOT-ən- | ||
|a-ROOT- > | |a-ROOT- > é-ROOT-ən- | ||
|- | |- | ||
!External #2 | |||
|ROOT- > ROOT-aw- | |ROOT- > ROOT-aw- | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
!External #3 | !External #3 | ||
|ROOT- > ROOT- | |ROOT- > ROOT-v: (-ū, -ā) | ||
|ROOT- > ROOT-ī | |ROOT- > ROOT-ī | ||
|- | |- | ||
!Broken External #1 | !Broken External #1 | ||
|a-C<sup><small>ə</small></sup>CəC- > | |a-C<sup><small>ə</small></sup>CəC- > é-CəCC-an | ||
|a-CəC- > | |a-CəC- > é-CaC-ən- | ||
|- | |- | ||
!Broken External #2 | !Broken External #2 | ||
| | |éCvC- > aCC-aw- | ||
| | |éCvC- > aCC-aw-ən | ||
|- | |- | ||
!Broken #1 | !Broken #1 | ||
| - | |CvCC- > CèCaC- | ||
|CiCC- > CéCaC- | |||
|} | |||
The broken plurals of Arabic appear to stem from multiple systems, while the broken plurals of Berber (largely adopted above) appear to be mostly prosodic in nature. It is possible the chaos in Arabic is caused by biradical roots. Regardless, avoiding infixing, here are some possibly applicable broken plurals: | |||
{| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="graytable lightgraybg" style="width: 700px; text-align:center;"| | |||
!Plural Type | |||
!Formation | |||
!Alternative | |||
|- | |||
!Broken External #1 | |||
|CvCC > ʔa-CCāC | |||
|CvCv:C > ʔa-CCéCa | |||
|- | |||
!Broken #1 | |||
|CvCv:C > CèCèC | |||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
!Broken #2 | |||
|CvC(v)C(a) > CəCa(:)C | |||
| | |||
|} | |||
Overall, some tendencies emerge: | |||
1. The heavier the final syllable is in a root, the more likely it is to redistribute the vowels towards the front or even them out across the entire root. | |||
2. Roots with a vowel in the first syllable but not the second will be more likely to have the first syllable reduced and the second given an /a/ | |||
3. Suffixes then contract adjacent syllables as phontactics allow. Thus, CəCa:C > ʔa-CCāC, and (a-)CəCəC > (é-)CəCC-an. | |||
4. Suffixes can also act as if part of the root when dealing with vowel assignment | |||
Thus, bringing this affair to close of sorts, plurals may probably resemble the following: | |||
{| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="graytable lightgraybg" style="width: 700px; text-align:center;"| | |||
!Singular Form | |||
!Plural Form | |||
!Plural with -n | |||
!Plural with -w | |||
!Plural with -v: | |||
!Plural with v- | |||
|- | |||
!CvC | |||
|??? | |||
|CəCan | |||
|CəCaw | |||
|CəCā | |||
|a-CaC | |||
|- | |||
!CvCC | |||
|CəCaC | |||
|CəCaCən | |||
|CvCCaw | |||
|CvCCā | |||
|v-CCaC | |||
|- | |||
!CCvC | |||
|CvCvC | |||
|CvCCan | |||
|CvCCaw | |||
|CvC(v)Cā | |||
|v-CCvC | |||
|} | |||
====Nominal Prefixes==== | |||
In addition to all the above, and working in with gender, case and number, there are the nominal prefixes. These are rather optional, being representative mostly of Berber. They change according to case and number. They appear to be innovated from pronouns formed by gender and case markers. | |||
{| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="graytable lightgraybg" style="width: 700px; text-align:center;"| | |||
!Gender | |||
!Absolutive | |||
!Nominative | |||
!''(Plural)'' | |||
|- | |||
!Male | |||
|(a-) | |||
|w/u- | |||
|y/i- | |||
|- | |||
!Female | |||
|ta- | |||
|tə- | |||
|ti-/tə- | |||
|} | |||
The reason for the female prefix being reduced could be either an underlying tu- and ti- that has lost its vowel quality due to a heavier syllable later on in the word (such as the noun's own case marker), or because the marker predates case innovation (or was established during a lull in case marking?). | |||
====Noun Summary==== | |||
{| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="graytable lightgraybg" style="width: 700px; text-align:center;"| | |||
!Gender | |||
!Absolutive | |||
!Nominative | |||
!''(Plural)'' | |||
|- | |||
!Male | |||
|(a-) | |||
|w/u- | |||
|y/i- | |||
|- | |||
!Female | |||
|ta- | |||
|tə- | |||
|ti-/tə- | |||
|} | |} | ||