On 8/18/06, Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: "Henrik Theiling" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 1:30 AM
>
> > Dirk Elzinga writes:
> >>...
> >> I think that a strict segregation of morphology and
> >> phonology is
> >> probably a mistake in lg creation, whatever your
> >> analytical
> >> predilections are. For me, most of the interest in
> >> morphology is in
> >> its interaction with phonological forms. ...
>
> I think I haven't had success with that. In fact, I have
> discarded the idea of having ablauts in Ayeri again because
> I always forgot to make sensible rules, i.e. I devised
> random changes. Since in Ayeri ablaut officially occurs only
> in if-clauses to mark the "then" part (IIRC), it was easy to
> introduce the less ambiguous "bata ... kada ..."
> construction and to say that the ablaut stuff is only done
> in some dialects but is not obligatory. I chose to have
> ablaut in Ukele, too, but this time I chose more sensible
> patterns I think so that I will keep them.

Well, ablaut is only one of the devices I mentioned and the least
interesting one to me in a constructed language -- I'm more interested
in stem shape change (think of Semitic), reduplication and the like. I
just offered ablaut as an example of a non-trivial interaction of
phonology and morphology along with the others I mentioned.

> > Very true.  I often failed when I tried to use a phonology
> > 'module'
> > for a conlang.
>
> Funny, though, since our L1 uses ablaut frequently.

See, here's my difficulty with ablaut -- this will mirror your own
comments. In all of the cases I'm aware of, ablaut is synchronically
arbitrary. There are examples where it makes sense historically, but
none that I know of where it is a principled synchronic alternation
(though I'd be happy to be corrected). That means that there just
isn't an explanation in terms of phonotactics, authentic units of
prosody, morpho-syntactic structure or the like; it just exists in its
odd little corner defying a tidy generalization. Not that that's a
problem; it certainly gives the Germanic languages part of their
distinctive flavor, which I, as a native speaker of English (and a
semi-fluent speaker of German and Dutch), quite enjoy. It's just a
very difficult thing to bring off convincingly in a constructed
language.

> >> > P.S. more details of Miapimoquitch will be welcome.
> >>
> >> I'm hoping to finish the morphology section of the
> >> grammar by the end
> >> of the month; I'll be sure to let the list know when it's
> >> done.
> >
> > Oh yes, please!
>
> Seconded. BTW, do I correctly interpret what you wrote and
> Miapimoquitch has pitch accent?

No, there is no pitch accent in Miapimoquitch. Out of curiosity, what
lead you to believe that Miapimoquitch had pitch accent? Is it my
non-IPA usage of acute and grave? If so, they are meant to mark
primary and secondary stress, respectively, and not pitch levels.

> Carsten

Dirk