Linguifex

User:Chrysophylax/put: Difference between revisions

User page Discussion

User:Chrysophylax/put (view source)

Revision as of 21:42, 18 February 2021

5,392 bytes added ,  18 February 2021
m
→‎Number
(phonology)
 
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
====Consonants====
====Consonants====
PU possessed at least 16 distinctive consonant units:
PU possessed at least 16 distinctive consonant units:
{|
|-
|colspan="3"|
|labial
|dental
|cacuminal
|palatal
|velar
|-
|colspan="3"|plain stops
|p
|t
|
|
|k
|-
|colspan="3"|affricates
|
|
|c
|
|
|-
|colspan="3"|sibilants
|
|s
|
|ś
|-
|colspan="3"|nasals
|m
|n
|
|ń
|ŋ
|-
|colspan="3"|spirants
|
|ð
|
|ð’
|-
|colspan="3"|laterals
|
|l
|-
|colspan="3"|vibrants
|
|r
|-
|colspan="3"|glides
|w
|
|
|j
|-
|}


labial
labial
Line 35: Line 93:
Similarly, for the sake of system symmetry, additional phonemes could be proposed in the palatal series. A couple of uncertain etymologies suggest the reconstruction of a palatal lateral ''*l’'' but even other palatal phonemes (stop, affricate) may well have existed in PU, though they must have been of low frequency.
Similarly, for the sake of system symmetry, additional phonemes could be proposed in the palatal series. A couple of uncertain etymologies suggest the reconstruction of a palatal lateral ''*l’'' but even other palatal phonemes (stop, affricate) may well have existed in PU, though they must have been of low frequency.


Synchronically the status of the “spirants” ''*ð'' and *''d’'' appears to be problematic. These phonemes may have originally been related to either the dental stop or the liquids.
Synchronically the status of the “spirants” ''*ð'' and *''ð’'' appears to be problematic. These phonemes may have originally been related to either the dental stop or the liquids.


====Vowels====
====Vowels====
Line 58: Line 116:
===Syntagmatic structure===
===Syntagmatic structure===
====Syllable structure====
====Syllable structure====
The PU syllable was simple in structure, consisting of a vowel nucleus and optional surrounding consonants: (C)V(C). The glides probably had a special status and could join the vowel nucleus without affecting the syllable structure (V = V, V''j'', V''w''). A word root (free morpheme) consisted of either one or two syllables and always ended in vowel: (C)V, (C)V(C)CV. Derivative elements and grammatical morphemes could be added to the roots by means of suffixation. These suffix erlements (bound morphejmes) consisted syntagmatically of either a single consonant, -C, or a whole syllable, -CV(C). Suffixes of a more complex structure also occured: -CCV; these were originally mainly combinations of suffixes.
The PU syllable was simple in structure, consisting of a vowel nucleus and optional surrounding consonants: (C)V(C). The glides probably had a special status and could join the vowel nucleus without affecting the syllable structure (V = V, V''j'', V''w''). A word root (free morpheme) consisted of either one or two syllables and always ended in vowel: (C)V, (C)V(C)CV. Derivative elements and grammatical morphemes could be added to the roots by means of suffixation. These suffix elements (bound morphemes) consisted syntagmatically of either a single consonant, -C, or a whole syllable, -CV(C). Suffixes of a more complex structure also occurred: -CCV; these were originally mainly combinations of suffixes.
 
====Consonant distribution====
====Consonant distribution====
The occurence of of consonant phonemes in the syllable and within the word was restricted by only a few syntagmatic rules. The velar nasal *''ŋ'' and, in view of the lack of relevant etymological material also the vibrant ''*r'' and the spirant ''*ð'' never occured word-initially. The spirants ''*ð'' and ''*ð’'', as well as the palatal nasal ''*ń'' have not been attested in syllable-final position. At the boundary of two, syllables, the most typical consonant combinations were those of obstruent + obstruent and nasal + obstruent, but many other types of combinations also occured. Among the unrecorded and probably syntagmatically impossible combinations were those of the type obstruent + sonorant. Also, no reliable evidence exists for combinations of two identical segments (geminates).
The occurence of of consonant phonemes in the syllable and within the word was restricted by only a few syntagmatic rules. The velar nasal *''ŋ'' and, in view of the lack of relevant etymological material also the vibrant ''*r'' and the spirant ''*ð'' never occured word-initially. The spirants ''*ð'' and ''*ð’'', as well as the palatal nasal ''*ń'' have not been attested in syllable-final position. At the boundary of two, syllables, the most typical consonant combinations were those of obstruent + obstruent and nasal + obstruent, but many other types of combinations also occured. Among the unrecorded and probably syntagmatically impossible combinations were those of the type obstruent + sonorant. Also, no reliable evidence exists for combinations of two identical segments (geminates).
Line 73: Line 132:
ə
ə


A consequence of the phonotactic restrictions is that only two distinctive stem types could occur in the word roots: å/ä-stems and ə-stems. A characteristic of the latter is that the stem final high (reduced) vowel ''ə'' could alternate with zero before suffixes comprising a whole syllab,e provided the restrictions on consonant distribution were not violated. The phenomenon (the so called consonant stem) is actually one of the very few morpho[honemic alternations that can be reconstructed in PU.
A consequence of the phonotactic restrictions is that only two distinctive stem types could occur in the word roots: å/ä-stems and ə-stems. A characteristic of the latter is that the stem final high (reduced) vowel ''ə'' could alternate with zero before suffixes comprising a whole syllable provided the restrictions on consonant distribution were not violated. The phenomenon (the so called consonant stem) is actually one of the very few morphophonemic alternations that can be reconstructed in PU.


Another consequence of the restrictions in vowel distributions is that in suffixes containing a low vowel in the lexicon, the vowel segment could be realized either as a back vowe (''*å'') or as a front vowel (''*ä'') depending on the vocalism of the root.
Another consequence of the restrictions in vowel distributions is that in suffixes containing a low vowel in the lexicon, the vowel segment could be realized either as a back vowe (''*å'') or as a front vowel (''*ä'') depending on the vocalism of the root.
Line 80: Line 139:
Vowel distribution is interrelated with a non-distinctive suprasegmental characteristic of the U languages: the initial stress. The PU stress pattern divided the word in two-syllable sections with initial stress, with the main stress on the first section of the word: (C)V́(C)CV/CV̀(C)CV(C)/.
Vowel distribution is interrelated with a non-distinctive suprasegmental characteristic of the U languages: the initial stress. The PU stress pattern divided the word in two-syllable sections with initial stress, with the main stress on the first section of the word: (C)V́(C)CV/CV̀(C)CV(C)/.
This phenomenon is best preserved on the periphery of the language family (Finnic-Lapp, Samoyed), where it has convergently led to important phonotactic and morphophonemic developments (esp. so called “consonant gradation”).
This phenomenon is best preserved on the periphery of the language family (Finnic-Lapp, Samoyed), where it has convergently led to important phonotactic and morphophonemic developments (esp. so called “consonant gradation”).
==Morphology==
===Parts of speech===
The most obvious material characteristic dividing words into functional classes in PU seems to have been the distinction according to the number of syllables in the word root. Basic deictic elements, used in pronominal and auxiliary functions, formed a class of monosyllables, whereas the bulk of the lexicon, the so called ”notation words” were disyllabic. In grammatical behaviour, however, no basic difference existed between two groups, except that in the paradigms of some pronouns there was suppletion.
Using morphological and syntactical criteria, two parts of speech, the noun and the verb, can be distinguished in PU. it is true that rather abundant evidence suggests that the distinction had been somewhat less strict in Pre-U. In fact, several PU derivative and inflectional suffixes could be affixed to both nominal and verbal stems. Also, there existed a small group of word roots, the so called nomenverba, which could morphologically and syntactically act both as nouns and verbs, in semantically closely related functions. However, in PU most of the lexicon was already unambiguously divided into nouns and verbs, and both parts of speech did have a range of morphological and syntactic characteristics of their own.
As for further classification, morphological criteria are not sufficient to serve as a basis for distinguishing any subclasses (such as “adjectives” and “numerals”). Also, no evidence exists of any separable group of indeclinable words (“adverbs”). For instance, space relationships were expressed by regularly declined spatial nouns, used both independently and in postposition constructions (as nominal postpositions). Undoubtedly, however, there existed in PU some kind of extra-grammatical group of utterances (“interjections” and the like).
===Nominal categories===
====Derived stems====
Practically all possible phonological shapes were used in the large stock of PU denominal and deverbal nominal suffixes. The most common and most reliably reconstructable types comprise such as : stop, stop+vowel, stop+stop+vowel (possibly incl. geminate stop+vowel), nasal, nasal+vowel, nasal+stop+vowel, sibiliant+vowel, liquid+vowel, glide. However, except for some of the verbal noun suffixes, the exact function of the derivative elements remain largely obscure. For most of the denominal suffixes only a vague "diminutive meaning" can be reconstructed. Among the few functionally clear cases are: ''*-mpå/-mpä'' for denoting local contrast (later becoming the comparative suffix in Finnic-Lapp and Hungarian), ''*-mtV'' for order (ordinal numbers and pronouns), and the complex caritive suffix ''-*ktåmå/-ktämä''.
The suffixes for intensification of deixis in pronouns, such as ''*-m, *-n, *-mV, *-nV'', are a special case, since these may have had an additional function. By adding a syllable to the monosyllabic pronoun stem, it was possible to remove the structural difference between the deictic elements and the rest of the lexicon.
Grammatically the derived stems did not differ in any way from the stems without derivative elements.
====Number====
The absolute form of the noun could probably be used collectively for indefinite number. The use of a suffix for denoting non-singular number may in Pre-U have originally had an additional defining or individualizing function. However, in PU, at least the plural suffixes were obviously often used without regard to this limiting condition.
Plural was expressed by two alternative suffixes: ''*-t''for the absolute form and ''*-j'' for the conjunctive form. The absolute form was used independently in the sentence, mainly as the subject, while the conjunctive form was used in subordinate position, both adnominally as an attribute (corresponding to the function of a plural genitive case) and adverbally as an object (in the function of plural accusative). The conjunctive form was also used before further suffix morphemes (such as the possessive suffixes).
The dual also existed as a separate category in Pu, marked by the suffix ''*-kɘ(-)''. However, the dual nowadays only exists on the peripheries of the language family (Lapp, Ob-Ugrian, Samoyed), and the PU dual suffix has been materially preserved only in the eastern groups (Ugric, Samoyed). THese facts sugges that the use of the dual in PU was dialectally restricted. Furthermore, the individualizing function of the number morpheme was probably more distinct in the dual, and the ose of the suffix may have tended to be restricted to nouns semantically marked +animate or +human.
Number in personal pronouns was expressed irregularly: cf. sg. 1. ''*mun'', 2. ''*tun'' vs. pl. 1. ''*me-'', 2. ''*te-'' (probably combined with the ordinary plural suffixes). Whether dual pronouns existed at all, is not known for certain, but some evidence points to the possibility that these may have been formed by adding to the plural stems specific pronominal dual formatives (cf. the possessive suffixes).
====Case====
Retrieved from "https://linguifex.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/30260...220492"