[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [romconlang] Northern Romance chronology and phonology
> I wonder how Romance lengthening of vowels in stressed > open syllables -- in Iberian of all stressed vowels -- > and subsequent diphthongization would affect Northern > Romance. The rising diphthongization of low mid [E:] and > [O:] to /ie/ and /uo/ or similar is well nigh universal > in Romance, but Old French also had high mid [e:] and > [o:] become /ei/ and /ou/. Since OHG had both types of > diphthong it is tempting to copy the Old French pattern > in Northern Romance. OTOH Germanic had a very different > vowel system from the VL one, so that it seems moot > whether Northern Romance would preserve the distinction > between two heights of mid vowels or merge them in the > first place.
I've been looking at vowels again. I'm not sure if the following is the right way to go, although I do think this is better than my first idea.
Our Pre-Roman Germnaicans have the following vowels:
i i: u u:
e e:
O:
{:
a
The /{:/ is dropping towards /a:/.
The invading Romans have thir new 7-vowel sytem:
i u
e o
E O
a
We can merge these two systems by having the Germanicans interpret /o/ as
/u/ (c.f. Gothic <Rumoneis>) and /E/ as /{/. With this /{/ moving to /a/, we
will ultimately end up with the following vowel system:
i u
e
O
a (a:)*
*The length distinction of /a:/ from /{:/ might be kept, as the Germanicans
did distinguish length, otherwise both would merge to /a/.
The correspondence between this system and the CL vowels would therefore be: /i/ < long I /u/ < long V, short V, long O /e/ < long E, short I, OE /O/ < short O /a/ < long, A, short A (+? short E, AE) (/a:/ < short E, AE)This system would mean that you would lose the chance to have the rising diphthongisation of low /E/, although it may be possible still for /O/. While I sit here pondering that and the possible effects of this vowel system, I'm thinking about PEDE, as PEDE > PIED (French) is the first example that comes to mind. If we did have /E/ > /{/ > /a/, then we would end up with the Germanican word for 'foot' being *Pfad! Is it merely coincidence that the ATL word for 'foot' is the OTL word for 'path'/'track', or a sign that't I'm on the right track (no pun intended)!?
P.