Print

Print


On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:05:52 -0600, Aidan Grey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Given that le/la would merge with the few sound changes i have figured out
>at the moment, and since liaison would be obliterated by analogy, and
>gender-political pressures...  I think gender might end up disappearing as
>a useful category in Wassa...

Would it survive in verbal inflexion, though?  _il_ and _elle_ might not merge.  And that ought to be enough to make persist the category.  


On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:44:16 -0600, Aidan Grey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I think this means that for Wassa the genders will be analogized across the
>board (the current generic patterns will take over fully). In practice,
>this will mean that -n and -s, for example, make a feminine noun (atà
>'author' > atas 'female author'. ) Because final consonants are retained in
>feminine nouns, that will be the major distinction. Liasion will generally
>disappear, but with an analogical/generic epenthetic k (from the ? glottal
>stops at the end of words < /x/ < /R/) before vowels only - or possibly,
>ALL vowel initial adjectives will move to k- (e.g. kahteshu 'arterial' as
>in sa kahteshu 'arterial blood' ).

Is /R/ in fact the most frequent liaising consonant in present spoken French?  My guess (through experience only with book French) would've been that it's /z/, with one of /n R t/ in second -- and for that matter, that something like /t/ is the most "unmarked", whatever in the world that means.  Or does the syntactic distribution in contexts that survive into Wassa somehow tilt this?

Are you really positing /x/ > /?/ > /k/?  It feels a stretch to me, and Duke-of-Yorky besides.  It's extremely hard to resurrect a glottal stop into anything with oral obstruction, so I suppose that part has to be a reversal of direction of an original change [k] > [?] of some sort.  And it's strange too for the continuant [x] to go to the noncontinuant [?], rather than [h].  

What does _kahteshu_ represent phone*ically?  (I kinda hope "sh" isn't a digraph for [S]; if you ask me it's a gross one, and current French orthography's "ch" for [S] is much more aligned with the grain of the Roman alphabet in its gamut of usage.)

Eh, I might as well come out and ask the whole question: what are your posited sound changes?

Alex