On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Raymond Brown wrote: >At 10:48 pm -0300 13/11/99, FFlores wrote: >> >>I have two questions: are there natlangs where umlaut is still >>productive? (Sindarin comes to mind...) And is it common to >>have several types of umlaut, like Welsh? > >I think it's not unusual - Old Norse had both i-umlaut & u-umlaut. And a. > >>I'm thinking that >>having i- and a-umlaut may be more likely than having, say, >>i- and u-umlaut, since those could confuse roots even more >>(what is */mys/, << /misu/ or << /musi/)? > >Well, if you introduced a series of _unrounded_ back vowels you could have >both. /mys/ is more likely to be derived from /musi/, and /mMs/ coul well >be from /misu/. The lips keep in their original position - i.e. rounded or >unrounded, but the tongue has moved to the position of the lost final vowel. > >>Well, and a third question: which vowels are more likely to >>cause umlaut? All we've seen until now is the vertices of >>the vowel triangle. > >'vertices' - that's the word I was trying to think of early this morning :) > >Yep - this is no coincidence. The tongue is far more likely to modify >preceding vowels if it is moving towards one of the vowels on the vertex of >the vocalic triangle. Are there o and e umlaut at all then? What kind of umlaut is "Goethe", or is it? I always thought it was, but would appreciate clarification. Padraic. >Ray.