man of few words
Anthologica Universe Atlas / Users / kodé

Ex foris

? kodé man of few words
posts: 105
, Deacon, this fucking hole we call LA
Excellent! It definitely looks like a North American indigenous language, but not of either of the families I'm more familiar with (Penutian and Muskogean). I like the suffixes that simultaneously express subject person and number, (ir)realis, and (im)perfective. The main thing I'm wondering right now is what the difference is between acute accent and superscript 'H' in the URs.
in thread: Hikoomayii Story
? kodé man of few words
posts: 105
, Deacon, this fucking hole we call LA
i'm trying to wrap my head around the "fixed temporal reference" thing. does "no fixed temporal reference" mean the speaker isn't asserting past/present/future, or just that they aren't asserting a specific time interval/point in particular? if it's the former, it doesn't seem very useful, most just for generic or habitual statements. if it's the latter, then it seems like you could use it more widely. but even in that situation, doesn't it mean that if you use a definite time adverbial, like "three days ago" or "in September" or "8:30 pm" that you'd have to use a fixed reference verb form?

or am i completely misunderstanding this? i'd like to know, since it's a cool idea.
? kodé man of few words
posts: 105
, Deacon, this fucking hole we call LA

The linguists at Chásur reconstruct Proto-Taol something like this:

 p   t   kʲ   k
ˀp  ˀt  ˀkʲ  ˀk
 pʰ  tʰ  kʲʰ  kʰ
 f?  s   ʃ    h

n l r ʁ

i  e  a  ɑ  o  u
ī  ē  ā  ɑ̄  ō  ū
î? ê  â  ɑ̂? ô  û?

looks neat!

The existence of *f is uncertain; it is largely reconstructed to explain Maotic words which have /h/ (instead of Ø), however, it has been noted that most such instances precede /a/, e.g. *fālu > hálu "female human".

kʲ ʃ will be spelled *c *š.

The second vowel series is the long counterpart of the first. The third vowel series, marked with a circumflex, is infrequent; its properties are uncertain, but it was preserved into the earliest stages of all Taol languages (including Eastern Taol, which lost length) long enough to be invariably marked in the standard orthographies. In Maotic both the second and third series collapsed into the first; in Dálx the second and third series are both pronounced as long; additionally, the circumflex marks vowels compensatorily lengthened by the loss of a consonant (e.g. *lek-ši > lês. In Eastern Taol the third series is pronounced long (usually analyzed as doubling of the vowel, e.g. âcasi /a.a.tʃa.si/, etc.) The origin of the third series in Proto-* shows several apparent contractions in *VyV, among scattered other sources.

do you think irl (the constructed rl), the difference is tonal? or with voicing modality?

A rough sketch of changes from Proto-Taol to the earliest literary period looks like so:
short *ɑ merges with /o/, long *ɑ̄ breaks to /ao/
long *ū breaks to /ue/
preglottalized consonants become voiced and lose preglottalization

interesting. i'd expect them to lose preglottalization and become voiceless plain, while the old voiceless plain become voiced (chain shift, i guess). but this way works, too.

* loss of final *i
loss of *š universally

that's weird! you'd expect some reflex of it, not a complete disappearance (since it's a noisy sound). maybe you get š -> h -> 0?

* loss of *h universally? debuccalization of *f > h
shift of /n/ to /m/ when initial or preceding nearby /n/+a very strange change to be sure, but the distribution bears it out

that makes sense, at least the "preceding /n/" part, that's just dissimilation. the initial part is weirder, but i suppose it could be bullied into happening by the dissimilation change.

loss of gemination
*kʲ > [ts] allophonically before front vowels /e i/; gʲ > /dz/ universally

Later final /e/, /a/ were lost (compare literary fíre with modern fír "tree"), and more importantly the entire length contrast.

looking forward to more!

man of few words
last seen: 1 day ago
posts: 105

send message
find forum posts

LocationLos Angeles, where dreams go to die