Re: [westasianconlangs] Phonology Question - k_wC

From: "Philip Newton" <philip.newton@hidden.email>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:47:36 +0200
Subject: Re: [westasianconlangs] Phonology Question - k_wC
To: westasianconlangs@yahoogroups.com

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:38 AM, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@hidden.email> wrote:
> The two changes would be the gemination change, and the
> whole sale *k_w > k.  This would produce some interesting
> irregularities:
>
> k_wati > kati
> kati > kati
>
> But
>
> ik_wti > ikti
> ikti > itti
>
> And perhaps...
>
> mak_w > mak
> mak > mak
>
> But with a /-ta/ suffix...
>
> mak_wta > makta
> makta > matta
>
> So you could have two different words with
> the same nominative form, let's say (/mak/),
> but when the plural /-ta/ suffix is added,
> the first stem stays /mak/ while the second
> becomes /mat/.  That'd be cool!

Oooh... shiny!

Cheers,
-- 
Philip Newton <philip.newton@hidden.email>

References:
- Re: Egyptian-inspired conlang (Is this list still alive?)
  - From: "eldin_raigmore" <eldin_raigmore@hidden.email>
- Indo-Iranian conlangs?
  - From: Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@hidden.email>
- Re: [westasianconlangs] Phonology Question - k_wC
  - From: "Philip Newton" <philip.newton@hidden.email>
- Re: [westasianconlangs] Phonology Question - k_wC
  - From: "David J. Peterson" <dedalvs@hidden.email>

Prev by Date: Re: [westasianconlangs] Phonology Question - k_wC
Next by Date: Re: [westasianconlangs] Re: Indo-Iranian conlangs?
Previous by thread: Re: [westasianconlangs] Phonology Question - k_wC
Next by thread: Re: [westasianconlangs] Egyptian-inspired conlang (Is this list still alive?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread