22
edits
Prefix Reform: Difference between revisions
m
Fix typo: [q] → [ŋ]
(mention spellings like eàno) |
m (Fix typo: [q] → [ŋ]) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|} | |} | ||
The {{t| | :<small>The {{t|ẹano}} gotcha does not disappear per se. However, with the prefix reform, it is much easier to see that prefixes are not “special” raku that can be tacked on the front of a word willy-nilly: {{t|e<u>'àno</u>}} is spelled exactly the same as {{t|<u>e'ano</u>}}, just with the stress shifted away from the first syllable. Colloquially, the glottal stop could be omitted – {{t|e<u>àno</u>}} and {{t|buq<u>ùgı</u>}} can only be understood in exactly one way – however, watch out for codal {{t|m}}: {{t|ra<u>màno</u>}} ≠ {{t|ram<u>'àno</u>}}.</small> | ||
==Pronunciation changes== | ==Pronunciation changes== | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
* This stressed syllable should be louder and/or longer and/or more extreme in terms of the tone contour. | * This stressed syllable should be louder and/or longer and/or more extreme in terms of the tone contour. | ||
* The unstressed prefix syllables should use the weak forms of their core vowels: /u/ goes to [ʊ], /i/ goes to [ɪ], /o/ goes to [ɔ]. These contextual allophones are already used elsewhere in the language – namely, [ɔ] appears in {{t|oı}} /ɔj/, and the three are also triggered before {{t|q}}, e.g., {{t|bıq}} [bɪŋ] and not [biŋ]. Now imagine this is yet another context for them to be weakened. This leads to spicy phonoaesthetics not seen anywhere else in the language: {{t|jıa-}} [dʑɪa]! | * The unstressed prefix syllables should use the weak forms of their core vowels: /u/ goes to [ʊ], /i/ goes to [ɪ], /o/ goes to [ɔ]. These contextual allophones are already used elsewhere in the language – namely, [ɔ] appears in {{t|oı}} /ɔj/, and the three are also triggered before {{t|q}}, e.g., {{t|bıq}} [bɪŋ] and not [biŋ]. Now imagine this is yet another context for them to be weakened. This leads to spicy phonoaesthetics not seen anywhere else in the language: {{t|jıa-}} [dʑɪa]! | ||
* The unstressed prefix syllables should be shortened with regards to regular vowel length: {{t|bunúq}} ‘the non-snake’ could be [ | * The unstressed prefix syllables should be shortened with regards to regular vowel length: {{t|bunúq}} ‘the non-snake’ could be [bʊ̌nʊŋ]. (◌̆, the breve, is used to signal “extra-short” vowel length in the IPA.) At any rate, they should sound shorter than the stressed syllable of the stem (so [bʊnuː] for {{t|bunú}} is fine). | ||
* In terms of tone: always pronounce all prefixes with the mid level tone, [˧]. Extra care should be taken not to allow the tone to slide upwards or downwards as it’s pronounced – in other words, avoid *[˧˦] or *[˧˨]. | * In terms of tone: always pronounce all prefixes with the mid level tone, [˧]. Extra care should be taken not to allow the tone to slide upwards or downwards as it’s pronounced – in other words, avoid *[˧˦] or *[˧˨]. | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
The value of this proposal, apart from more flexibility and less ambiguity, is that stems no longer alternate between stressed and unstressed depending on whether they have prefixes attached to them (think {{t|<u>juı</u>taq}} vs. {{t|bụ<u>juı</u>}}). As another pleasant side effect, poly[[raku]]<nowiki/>ic words in {{done|3}} are now possible (like {{t|äımu}}, which before was ambiguous with the mid-falling allotonal forms of {{t|ạımu}} and {{t|ạ́ımu}}). | The value of this proposal, apart from more flexibility and less ambiguity, is that stems no longer alternate between stressed and unstressed depending on whether they have prefixes attached to them (think {{t|<u>juı</u>taq}} vs. {{t|bụ<u>juı</u>}}). As another pleasant side effect, poly[[raku]]<nowiki/>ic words in {{done|3}} are now possible (like {{t|äımu}}, which before was ambiguous with the mid-falling allotonal forms of {{t|ạımu}} and {{t|ạ́ımu}}). | ||
==Hoemaı's comments== | |||
[[Hoemaı]] commented on the proposal on [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/1206242007438073876 February 11, 2024 in #general]. {{Transcript|<blockquote> | |||
First of all, I agree with the motivation behind the proposal; the morphology isn't as simple as it could be, but there are reasons for this. | |||
The two downsides I see with the prefix proposal | |||
1) In Toaq beta, there were constructions like the following | |||
{{t|Gı mu hâo súq}} | |||
{{t|Bủ dủa jí hı râi ní.}} | |||
where the "prefixes" mu and hı would appear outside of the {{Tone|5}} clause that they belong to. | |||
When I created the prefix morphology of Toaq Delta, this was something I wanted to avoid. The prefix proposal looks like it would lead to something similar, e.g. {{t|buháo}}. This is why the morphology is as complicated as it is; I wanted both the stress and the word-tone to be on the first syllable. | |||
2) I see a great danger in the unstressed mid tone turning into a low tone in casual speech, making it very difficult to distinguish {{t|haobu háo}} and {{t|hao buháo}}. This is something that universal initial stress avoids. (I see that the most recent version of the wiki page has a rule about a change in vowel quality, which would help with this a bit. I'd have to mull it over) | |||
Bottom line: | |||
I wish I could just be 100% in favor of the proposal, because it's a good one. However, I want to be transparent about why I'm not and why the morphology is the way it is: it's not that I simply missed an easier alternative, but that I started with certain goals in mind (see above) and had to make the rules fit the goals. Are these goals worth the complexity? Depends on one's priorities. | |||
</blockquote>}} | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||