Print

Print


--- On Thu, 3/1/12, Matthew Boutilier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Matthew Boutilier <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] What is this called?
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, March 1, 2012, 5:20 PM
> >
> > > Strong verbs are the ones with ablaut. Weak verbs
> are the
> > > ones with -ed in the preterite.
> >
> > Except for all the weak verbs that have ablaut as
> well...
> >
> 
> well, yes and no.
> 
> if by "ablaut" you mean simply "vowel alternation," then
> sure. but then,
> man/men (textbook case of umlaut) is also a type of ablaut,
> since that's a type of vowel alternation.

I didn't think this was -- I think this is a pretty clear case of i-umlaut
where breed/bred, bereave/bereft are not.

> if by "ablaut" you mean "vowel change stemming from
> /e/~/o/~ alternation
> in proto-indo-european," then certainly not, since the
> weep/wept,
> sleep/slept, read(ri:d)/read(rEd) alternations all come from
> vowel
> shortening before consonant clusters, and no original
> alternations in PIE.

Indeed not. The article makes this point I think far better than I can!

Padraic

> the linguistics community generally only uses "ablaut" to
> refer to the
> latter case, i.e. what we would call strong verbs.
> this is why the term
> "ablaut" rarely gets thrown around outside of indo-european
> linguistics.
> 
> matt
> 
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
> > --- On Thu, 3/1/12, Michael Everson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > I was refering to the ablaut but come to
> think of it I
> > > > don't really understand strong/weak verbs
> either.
> > >
> > > Strong verbs are the ones with ablaut. Weak verbs
> are the
> > > ones with -ed in the preterite.
> >
> > Except for all the weak verbs that have ablaut as
> well...
> >
> > The [i] ~ [E] variation in breed, sleep, weep, bereave,
> read, etc.
> >
> > http://www.jstor.org/stable/4171654
> >
> > Padraic
> >
> > > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> >
>