[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Benct Philip Jonsson" <bpj@...> wrote: [...] > > >| CL -- WRom / GRom -- NRom > >| > >| kj ki ke -- ts tsi tse -- T Ti Te ( #s #si #se )? ^2 > > Check, but I can't see why initial instances of [ts'] should > get a different shave. In fact we *want* initial _th/dh > d_ > in particular, no? For sure. /T/ in all positions then. [...] > >| #dj -- #dZ -- #D ^3 > >| dj -- 0 -- 0 > > I'm much more inclined to #dj > j (possibly #dj > d > t) and > definitely -dj- > dd. At the time the WRom palatisation is being undone, there is no /d/ in our target phonology, only /D/. This /D/ does become /d/ shortly afterwards though. However, I think I prefer #/j/. So toss a coin, do we want: #dj > #Dj > #D > #d (we need a very fast change here! - feasible?) #dj > #j dj > (Dj >) dj > dd for certain. [...] > >| #ga -- #dZa -- #Da ^3 > > As I said before ka > tSa/ga > dZa is of limited validity even > in Gaul. I'd rather think it simply won't happen in Germano- Romance. OK, scratched. > >| sj -- z -- s ^4 > > No, definitely sj > S > x > h. Old French has Vsj > Vis in all > instances, which probably developed from [S] or rather [s\]. > Remember there was no /S/ in OF, only /tS/ < k / _a! This is problematic. I want /S/ > /x/... BUT: There is no /S/ in OF, and there is no /S/ in OHG either. So we have no /S/ anywhere. I don't see how if we have no /S/ where we start or finish, we can have it in the middle!? The Gmc had [s_a], and I think this is the closest phoneme to /sj/. Rom /sj/ also seems to have shifted to /z/ ([z_a]?) in many instances, which again would be [s_a] in Gmc. That must mean we are stuck with sj > z > s ?? [...] > >| rj -- r -- r > > - Old French had rj > ir! > - W.Gmc. simply *preserved* /rj/ (e.g. *nazjan > OE _nerian_) No change for rj then. [...] Pete