Print

Print


>"egorigok" is a word that I created by automatic writing in the early
>stages of developing Khangaþyagon, but it never really fitted in. While
>it doesn't violate any phonological or phonotactic constraints, it's
>just not phonaesthetically right.
>
>However, I do have a morphological analysis of the word, that shows how
>it's built up in whatever language it does belong to.
>
>Start with the root
>igo
>Reduplicating this gives
>*igoigo
>You can see what's wrong with this at first glance. Obviously, vowels
>that differ in both frontness and roundedness can't occur in hiatus. We
>need an epenthetic r in there, giving
>igorigo

Is r-epenthesis regular in Khangaþyagon or some other project of yours?
Because I'm tempted to analyze this as _partial_ reduplication of an
ideophone /rigo/ or /igor/. Compare "itsy-bitsy", "eeny meeny", "ooga booga"
or "aye yi yi" (BTW that last one always looked silly to me spell'd out;
shouldn't it be *i yi yi? As written I'm tempted to read it as /aH:e ji ji/!)

Anyway, I agree with Jörg in that /igorigo/ would be a fine root for "toad"
or "frog".


>We then add a prefix æ, thus giving
>*æigorigo
>But since æ and i have the same frontness and roundedness, they merge to
>give
>egorigo
>Finally, we add the suffix -k to give
>egorigok
>
>However, I've no idea what the semantics of this is. Anyone like to
>attach meanings to the above?
>
>Pete

These are non-Khangaþyagon affixes too? At least the first sounds like it's
functioning within its phonology.

If we assume it's a loanword from a different language, let's say i- > e-
(however you analyze that) marks adjectivization, and the -k is a nominativ
suffix, implying a zero-derived deadjectival noun. Thus, /egorigok/ (from
*æigorigok, if you will) would translate as "a frog-like thing". Sounds good
for some mythological purpose.

John Vertical