Zompist Bboard Again

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:09 am Source of what?

Is Weera Ostapirat's thesis is the Proto Kra one? If so, I must have overlooked one.

It is.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:44 amIt is.

Thanks.

Proto-Lakes Plain and its wacky inventory of /p b t d k/ without nasals, fricatives or liquids (although there may have been a /ɾ/ inside words). Who was it that thought that was reasonable? Even with [ɸ h] as allophones of /p/ and /tiV/ [sV], that's still basically a no-no.

More info: http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t ... 158#p25158

Ser wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:10 am Proto-Lakes Plain and its wacky inventory of /p b t d k/ without nasals, fricatives or liquids (although there may have been a /ɾ/ inside words). Who was it that thought that was reasonable? Even with [ɸ h] as allophones of /p/ and /tiV/ [sV], that's still basically a no-no.

At least the stop inventory is unexceptional.

Question - do Lakes Plain languages have nasal vowels, or is there a complete lack of nasality altogether in the Lakes Plain family?

/a/ is nasalized in some languages of the family, but its not contrastive .... you have /ã/ by itself and then /e i o u/ or whatever the other vowels are in that language. And some of them have no nasal vowels, even allophonically.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:50 am /a/ is nasalized in some languages of the family, but its not contrastive .... you have /ã/ by itself and then /e i o u/ or whatever the other vowels are in that language. And some of them have no nasal vowels, even allophonically.

In languages of the family which do have nasalized /a/, do voiced stops adjacent to it allophonically nasalize?

The Wikipedia article isn't clear on that point.... The consonants are just listed with allophones.
Whoops I misread the question.....yes, I think progressive nasalization is the rule.... e.g. [mama], but not [ami]

Latgalian language has phoneme /jʲ/, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Xwtek wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:19 amLatgalian language has phoneme /jʲ/, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Wikipedia wrote:The phonemic status of /wʲ/ and especially /jʲ/ is questionable.

Wait, Mixe, you're too?

Wikipedia wrote:Pronunciation: [pwes haduʔn ʔidaː ʲ-ʔɨjoːb hɨjaʔaj ʔidaː ʔaldeano mɨːd ʲ-toʔoʃʲɨʰk ʲtɨɡoˑjʲ jɨ mɨkuʔu ]

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:42 am Wait, Mixe, you're too?

Wikipedia wrote:Pronunciation: [pwes haduʔn ʔidaː ʲ-ʔɨjoːb hɨjaʔaj ʔidaː ʔaldeano mɨːd ʲ-toʔoʃʲɨʰk ʲtɨɡoˑjʲ jɨ mɨkuʔu ]

According to Secondary Palatalization in Isthmus Mixe: A Phonetic and Phonological Account:

Occurring word initially in Isthmus Mixe, the feature of secondary palatalization alone represents the grammatical third person morpheme, palatalizing the initial consonant of the noun or verb. There are also verbal suffixes that consist solely of secondary palatalization, indicating clause-type markers (Dieterman 1995, 1998), and a deverbalizer, that palatalize the final consonant(s) of the verb.

/j/ [occurs] with 31 [instances] which are all palatal … No difference has been observed in /j/ when the palatalization morpheme also occurs. However, rather than set /j/ apart as a separate category, it has been included with the palatalized consonants.

So it seems that /jʲ/ in Mixe represents a word ending with /j/, followed by a suffix consisting solely of secondary palatalization. But this is more a morphophonemic detail, and as such, should have no place in a phonetic transcription like what Wikipedia is claiming to give.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:42 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:27 am

Akangka wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:14 pm Also, English, WTF you just mark subject only for 3SG? At least if you don't want too many agreement suffixes, you can mark verb by person only or number only. Also, why can't you combine that -s with a -ed? Also, you have too many irregular verbs.

It's just an imitation of the French subtractive morphemes, as in _oeuf_ 'egg' > _oeufs_ 'egg' and _petit_ 'little' (m.) < _petite_ (f.). English //s// is the present tense marker, with subtraction for the person and plural markers. You also see (or rather, hear) these subtractive person and numbeɾ markers being applied to the present subjunctive marker //ː//.

no

No to what?

This map of Yap has lots of names which sound like they’re from a bad fantasy novel: Thileer, Fongoch, Musgow, Gachpar, Feeching, Kanifay, Teanfaar, Qeng, Qawoch, Luweech, Bulwol…

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:28 am This map of Yap has lots of names which sound like they’re from a bad fantasy novel: Thileer, Fongoch, Musgow, Gachpar, Feeching, Kanifay, Teanfaar, Qeng, Qawoch, Luweech, Bulwol…

Do you think that on this map, in Maap, at Maap School, there is a map of Maap on Yap?

Glass Half Baked wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:11 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:28 am This map of Yap has lots of names which sound like they’re from a bad fantasy novel: Thileer, Fongoch, Musgow, Gachpar, Feeching, Kanifay, Teanfaar, Qeng, Qawoch, Luweech, Bulwol…

Do you think that on this map, in Maap, at Maap School, there is a map of Maap on Yap?

Actually, I think there probably is! I’m sure that Maap School in Maap in Yap has a map of Maap and a map of Yap (showing Maap)…

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:28 am This map of Yap has lots of names which sound like they’re from a bad fantasy novel: Thileer, Fongoch, Musgow, Gachpar, Feeching, Kanifay, Teanfaar, Qeng, Qawoch, Luweech, Bulwol…

consider the districts of Pohnpei: Kolonia, Kitti, Nett, Sokehs, Madolenihmw, and U

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:17 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:28 am This map of Yap has lots of names which sound like they’re from a bad fantasy novel: Thileer, Fongoch, Musgow, Gachpar, Feeching, Kanifay, Teanfaar, Qeng, Qawoch, Luweech, Bulwol…

consider the districts of Pohnpei: Kolonia, Kitti, Nett, Sokehs, Madolenihmw, and U

All the Oceanic languages have absolutely insane phonologies, not just Pohnpeian and Yapese. My personal favourite Oceanic language is actually Marshallese, which I think looks weirder than pretty much any other language I’ve seen:

MOD wrote: El̦ak baj to lal̦ l̦o̧k Jema eapdik men ko ippa. Ak lowaan wa eo ejino marok im jeitan ban lol̦o̧kjen̦. Ijujen wōnm̧aanl̦o̧k n̄an lowaan m̧weo itum̧aan im bōk liktak l̦an̦tōn eo. Jema ekwal̦o̧k juon mājet jān bōjo̧o̧n jedo̧ujij eo an im tile l̦aam̧ eo. Ebwe an kōmrame ijo bwe en m̧ōm̧an am̧ro kōmaati kein jerbal ko im āti i lowaan tuul̦ bo̧o̧k eo. M̧ōjin an l̦ake bo̧o̧k eo kōm̧ro kadikl̦o̧k l̦aam̧ eo im to ānel̦o̧k.

(source: https://www.trussel2.com/MOD/peloktxt.htm. That uses a slightly non-standard orthography where some of the weirder letters are replaced with more sensible versions, so I’ve re-weirded the text; otherwise it hasn’t been changed.)

It also has the craziest vowel system I’ve seen: a four-height vertical system where each vowel has three allophones depending on the secondary articulation of the surrounding consonant(s), but semivowels get deleted almost everywhere so it looks like there’s twelve phonemic vowels rather than four.

(Also, I find it interesting that Kolonia is a district of Pohnpei, since Colonia is also the name of the biggest town on Yap. I wonder how they tell them apart?)

Ive seen a few people here question the analysis of Marshallese, particularly the vowels. Consider, for example, unless Im mistaken, that the standard analysis makes it impossible to ever have a single vowel .... it MUST be bimoraic and must also have either a consonant or a glide at each end. so e.g. there is no */ma/, it has to be /mʲaɰaʷ/ or whatever.