|
Post by Lupulüc "Lupüc" da Fhöglha on May 13, 2014 16:51:24 GMT -6
Following the recommendations of S:reu Siervicül, here is the separate thread for questions about "Glhetgy" stuff. Here are more questions: 1) IPA-wise, how are "eu" and "éu" pronounced? 2) What sound did "î" make and does this sound still exist? 3) How does one know when there is a consonant mutation in a word and is it noted in the orthography of said word? That's all I have for now. Looking forward to reading your answers!
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 13, 2014 17:23:17 GMT -6
1) As far as I am concerned "eu" and "éu" are generally the same: /ew/, pronounced [ɛw]. The acute accent is a sign of stress, so: "suotamestéu" would be [swɔtəmɛsˈtɛw], while "Semistiçeu" would be, correct me if I am wrong, anyone, [sɛmisˈtisɛw]. 2) "î" was, and for me still is, the Russian Ы, ы; IPA [ɨ]~[ɯ̈]. The only exception to this rule is the participle present active suffix "-înd", which is pronounced /and/ [ant], due to a peculiarity. Many, including Madison, have agreed to abolish the sound, because even he himself could not pronounce the sound properly. But that does not mean, there are not others who can - I personally still use this letter, I am not sure if the old Republicans still do. 3) I am a vigorous defender of the lenition and use them followingly: Prepositions ending on a vowel, and the article "la" trigger the lenition of the following word(s related), e.g.: "la mhà nheagră", instead of "la mha neagră", or "la ma neagră" - The black hand (also a political party of the past) "Me zonetz à mhe el glhibreu del Glheþ Talossan" - You give *me* the Talossan language book. Prepositions ending on a consonant - especially a nasal - and including "al" (= a + la), "dal" (= da + la), etc., trigger an eclipsis: "Perstrepéu cün dtu" - I want to speak with you. "Téu mal àl gcoraziun schi parlas dal tSupinaziun!" - I feel sick when you speak of vomiting. I must also say that these rules are rather whimsical, since I am currently the only one vigorously defending the consonant mutations - maybe soon with Marceðo? - which are practically nonexistent. People even fear me *eying Óïn here* for wanting to reintroduce the mutations!
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 13, 2014 17:34:04 GMT -6
Following the recommendations of S:reu Siervicül, here is the separate thread for questions about "Glhetgy" stuff. Here are more questions: 1) IPA-wise, how are "eu" and "éu" pronounced? 2) What sound did "î" make and does this sound still exist? 3) How does one know when there is a consonant mutation in a word and is it noted in the orthography of said word? That's all I have for now. Looking forward to reading your answers! Darn. Being on an iPhone at the moment, I can't be much help with IPA, but I'll try to make do. 1) The diphthong eu is /Iw/, and éu is a non-diphthong pronounced /'eu/. 2) The vowel î is a close central unrounded vowel, "barred i". It's the same as the sound spelled î in Romanian or that looks like bI in Russian. As to whether it still exists, that depends. The CÚG abolished the sound (and letter) in the 2007 Arestada. But some Ladintschen don't accept the 2007 Arestada and persist in using the sound (or at least in writing î). 3) Again, this is a controversial issue. A 1993 Arestada abolished mutations except for most pronouns after prepositions and a few other fossilised examples. A 2010 Arestada reinstated more expansive use of mutations on an optional basis, but was a little fuzzy on some of the details. As for recognising mutations, the most common kind of mutation (lenition) is indicated by an h following the mutated consonant, e.g. b>bh, d>dh, f>fh. The other kind (eclipsis) appears when a different consonant is placed at the beginning of the word in front of the original initial consonant. The added consonant is pronounced, but the original is retained to indicate the eclipsis. E.g. b>mb, d>nd, f>vf. Pre-1993, the original consonsant (which becomes silent when eclipsed) was usually capitalised as an additional indication of the mutation (d>nD).
|
|
|
Post by Lupulüc "Lupüc" da Fhöglha on May 13, 2014 19:04:23 GMT -6
Personally, I would have no problem with this sound, since I am Russian! How would one pronounce these? Hey, who knows, if I finally decide to join the kingdom, we might be three defending mutations! Why doesn't the CÚG address this issue more in depth?
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 14, 2014 2:16:58 GMT -6
How would one pronounce these? [ɫɐ va ɲɛ'agɾɐ] [mɛ zɔ'nɛts a vɛ ɛw 'ʎibɾɪw dɛw ʎɛθ talo'san] [pɛɾstɾep'ɛu kyn du] ['teu maw aw goɾɐ'tsjũ ʃi 'parɫɐs daw tupinɐ'tsjũ] Hey, who knows, if I finally decide to join the kingdom, we might be three defending mutations! I'd recommend a name with as many marked mutations as possible! Edit: for example La C'ho·aliziun per la Mhamtenençù dal Müdada dels gConsonants
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 14, 2014 3:17:17 GMT -6
[ɫɐ va ɲɛ'agɾɐ] [mɛ zɔ'nɛts a vɛ ɛw 'ʎibɾɪw dɛw ʎɛθ talo'san] [pɛɾstɾep'ɛu kyn du] ['teu maw aw goɾɐ'tsjũ ʃi 'parɫɐs daw tupinɐ'tsjũ] I mostly agree, except 1) I don't think I use any dark ls in Talossan, so I would have [l] in place of each [ɫ], 2) in perstrepéu I would put the full [e] in the stressed syllable ([pɛɾstɾɛp'eu]), 3) I usually pronounce the l normally instead of velarising to [w] in àl and dal (but the [w] pronunciation is perfectly acceptable), 4) I would use [ɾ] rather than [r] in parlas. EDIT: I neglected to look at stress here. Parlas actually should be parlás, which has final stress. Edit: for example La C'ho·aliziun per la Mhamtenençù dal Müdada dels gConsonants
Apparently, under Epic's system he would even mutate Müdada. Why doesn't the CÚG address this issue more in depth? Mostly because the main proponents of the new mutations have been too busy with non-Talossan business to get into the weeds on the issue for the past year or so.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 14, 2014 3:48:42 GMT -6
I'd recommend a name with as many marked mutations as possible! Edit: for example La C'ho·aliziun per la Mhamtenençù dal Müdada dels gConsonants
I'd totally be part of that coalition! "dels", by the way, would not trigger any mutation, as far as I am concerned. But the exact rules need yet to be stipulated, so if you use it often enough, I am sure that it may be incorporated to the next Arestadă. Apparently, under Epic's system he would even mutate Müdada. If you speak strictly, yes: Müdada would be subject to an eclipsis. As I said above, "dal" and "àl" (if "< a + la"), and the like, trigger eclipsis, because the rule for lenition states: "Prepositions ending on a vowel." Dal and àl (< a + la) do not qualify, but their underlying word does - so therefore, it triggers an eclipsis, instead of a lenition. M, however, is not affected by an eclipsis, so we have a "null-mutation", if you will.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on May 14, 2014 4:37:11 GMT -6
Dal and àl (< a + la) do not qualify, but their underlying word does - so therefore, it triggers an eclipsis, instead of a lenition. Do keep in mind, however, that Celtic mutations fundamentally are triggered by phonetics and not by grammar, even though they today are used as grammatical markers. But if there never was an aspirating or nasalising situation in the linguistic past, there can be no mutation. It's like "An Apple" but "A Tasty Apple" and not "An Tasty Apple" even though the 'underlying' indefinite article is the same.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 14, 2014 4:45:43 GMT -6
Mh, yeah. I know, but it NEED NOT be the case with Talossan. Mind you, we are peculiar in many situations. I could even see Talossan headed in two different dialectal directions: The Mutation-dialect, and the non-mutation dialect. Would that not be lovely?
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 14, 2014 4:52:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on May 14, 2014 5:08:53 GMT -6
Mh, yeah. I know, but it NEED NOT be the case with Talossan. Mind you, we are peculiar in many situations. Outed as a peculiarist. How sad!
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on May 14, 2014 5:30:57 GMT -6
Perhaps the Talossan mutations developed (during the mythical Celto-Berber contact situation) by analogy with the Irish ones after they had become grammaticalised?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 14, 2014 6:28:16 GMT -6
If you speak strictly, yes: Müdada would be subject to an eclipsis. As I said above, "dal" and "àl" (if "< a + la"), and the like, trigger eclipsis, because the rule for lenition states: "Prepositions ending on a vowel." Dal and àl (< a + la) do not qualify, but their underlying word does - so therefore, it triggers an eclipsis, instead of a lenition. M, however, is not affected by an eclipsis, so we have a "null-mutation", if you will. Speaking historically, dal and àl did not trigger mutation at all, because they are not purely prepositions but prepositions followed by articles (and can as well be written da l' and à l' before vowels). Prepositions don't (or didn't) typically trigger mutation "at a distance", only when immediately preceding the mutable consonant. Do keep in mind, however, that Celtic mutations fundamentally are triggered by phonetics and not by grammar, even though they today are used as grammatical markers. Triggered by historical phonetics but currently a morphosyntactical phenomenon. That's a crucial clarification because it's what's missing from the modern treatment of Talossan mutations. Mh, yeah. I know, but it NEED NOT be the case with Talossan. Mind you, we are peculiar in many situations. I could even see Talossan headed in two different dialectal directions: The Mutation-dialect, and the non-mutation dialect. Would that not be lovely? We are peculiar in many situations, we have a lot of linguistically implausible stuff that is part of our heritage from the early days of the language. But I am very much against adding things that are even less linguistically plausible. The language should evolve in the direction of greater rather than less naturalism. And no, I don't think two dialects would be lovely. Not with as small of a Talossan-using community as we have now. For one thing, it would not be possible to choose a dialect and immerse yourself in that dialect because the total speaker community isn't large enough to divide itself like that. So dialogue would be mostly mixed-dialect. How much harder would it be for learners if they had to learn two distinct dialects at once to follow conversations on Witt, etc.?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 14, 2014 6:53:35 GMT -6
Unfortunately, that table has a number of errors, and is not consistent with the 2010 Arestada. I should know--I was the one who floated the idea to Hooligan that maybe "preposition ending in a consonant" should really be "preposition ending in n or r" (which is not what the Arestada says). Upon further research, that was a mistake. Perhaps the Talossan mutations developed (during the mythical Celto-Berber contact situation) by analogy with the Irish ones after they had become grammaticalised? Pre-1993, mutations did work (pretty much) like Irish ones. As currently described, they seem more like irregular orthographic indication of regular phonological processes (allophony). It's comparable to the RdR saying "ch represents the phoneme /x/ in German, and has the regular allophones [x] after back vowels and [ç] after front vowels and consonants, but from now on the allophone [x] will be spelled kh in masculine nouns and continue to be spelled ch in feminine and neuter nouns."
|
|
|
Post by Lupulüc "Lupüc" da Fhöglha on May 15, 2014 8:32:43 GMT -6
Unfortunately, that table has a number of errors, and is not consistent with the 2010 Arestada. I should know--I was the one who floated the idea to Hooligan that maybe "preposition ending in a consonant" should really be "preposition ending in n or r" (which is not what the Arestada says). Upon further research, that was a mistake. So is the table correct or not? If not, can someone make a correct version of it? I don't really understand when mutations occur or not...
|
|