Don't worry, it was made quite clear in the initial post. Assuming the proto-language is a natural language like any other, why would the ideophones in that language be harder to reconsttruct than etyma of other word types? Put differently, can you say why the ideophones would be resitant to reconstruction in the proto-language?
(My interest in the matter stems from the fact I am working on a project where some emphasis is placed on both historical phonology as well as the use of expressives).
Texts in bradrn’s conlangs
Re: Texts in bradrn’s conlangs
Well, I’d expect that that (a) they would be replaced much faster than other words and (b) they wouldn’t obey the usual sound changes. But I haven’t looked into the subject at all — this is just conjecture on my part,Raholeun wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:01 am Don't worry, it was made quite clear in the initial post. Assuming the proto-language is a natural language like any other, why would the ideophones in that language be harder to reconsttruct than etyma of other word types? Put differently, can you say why the ideophones would be resitant to reconstruction in the proto-language?
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)