zompist bboard

I have /gz/ in exit which cannot be predicted by your rules. But yes, the rest of those words follow those for me.

Early Middle Laqar: luz "lips" (f., col.), from Proto-Laqar *luz lúzla "lips" (f., col., 1S-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *luz and Proto-Laqar *-læː lúzni "lips" (f., col., 1P-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *luz and Proto-Laqar *-niː lozí "lips" (f., col., 2SM-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *luz and Prot...

Kind of painful to read someone talking about pronunciation with apparently no understanding of allophony or phonetic environment. E.g. you can't have <ia> = [ajej] at the end of a word, and I'm pretty sure four of those x's are allophonic. I agree with Sumelic that these cannot be chalked up to al...

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Thanks for the help, guys.

What are likely outcomes of /tʲ sʲ/? [pr̥ʲ tr̥ʲ kr̥ʲ sr̥ʲ]? I'm reasonably sure the sequences would end in /ʂ/ but want to make sure.

Any of [tɕ ɕ] or [tʃ ʃ] seem likely for the former. For the latter, any of [pʂ tʂ kʂ ʂː] or [pʃ tʃ kʃ ʃː] seem likely.

Early Middle Laqar: tiz "fortress" (m., sg.), from Proto-Laqar *tʰiz tízla "fortress" (m., sg., 1S-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *tʰiz and Proto-Laqar *-læː tízni "fortress" (m., sg., 1P-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *tʰiz and Proto-Laqar *-niː tezí "fortress" (m., sg., 2SM-possessed), from Proto-Laqa...

One approach that would work would be to mark the possessor with GEN and mark the possessum with POSS; this of course assumes the existence of a genitive, though.

Early Middle Laqar: žòhe "lizard" (m., sg..), from Proto-Laqar *ʑɒhi žəhlá "lizard" (m., sg.., 1S-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *ʑɒhi and Proto-Laqar *-læː žəhní "lizard" (m., sg.., 1P-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *ʑɒhi and Proto-Laqar *-niː žəhí "lizard" (m., sg.., 2SM-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *...

yangfiretiger121 wrote:As of now, Outsider has both /ʃ ʂ/. Essentially, I'm asking if the sounds are stable enough to coexist, and, if they aren't, which would survive the merger.

Polish and Mandarin both have /s ʂ ɕ/ without any problem, so if you feel /ʂ ʃ/ are too close together, you could back /ʃ/ to /ɕ/.

I would go with something like POSD, for possessed, or POSM, for possessum, for the abbreviation, to make it unambiguous that is marking the possessum and not the possessor.

Is there another word i can use instead of "possessed"? It doesnt even seem to have a Leipzig gloss abbreviation. although it does show INAL and ALIEN for inalienable & alienable possession respectively, i would think that they'd be integrated with the numbers as are the verb markers. I rarely use ...

Early Middle Laqar: ropséme "fastener" (f., sg..), from Proto-Laqar *ɾupʰi , Proto-Laqar *-sæj- , and Proto-Laqar *-mi ropsẽla "fastener" (f., sg.., 1S-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *ɾupʰi , Proto-Laqar *-sæj- , Proto-Laqar *-mi , and Proto-Laqar *-læː ropsẽni "fastener" (f., sg.., 1P-possessed), fro...

Does your language elide or lenite all stops?

masako wrote:next: clothes pin

Early Middle Laqar:

ropseme "fastener" (f.)
— rop "fast, firm, secure", from Proto-Laqar *ɾupʰi
— -se- causative, from Proto-Laqar *-sæj
— -me agent nominalization, from Proto-Laqar *-mi

next: barn

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Are /ʈʂ ʂ/ more likely outcomes for /c ç/ than /t͡ʃ ʃ/?

I would say the other way around; /c ç/ are more likely to become [t͡ʃ ʃ] than [ʈʂ ʂ].

Early Middle Laqar: (This is actually a transitive verb, but here is just, for the finite forms, the intransitive paradigm, used for antipassive or passive usages, because the transitive paradigm is just far too massive for me to compile except through automation, and would be too much paradigm-arrh...

I have always pronounced it /ˈspɑroʊ/; there is no point for me in pronouncing it /ɛsˈbɑroʊ/ since /sp/ and /sb/ (and even /zb/!) are homophonous for me (as [sʲp]) including across syllable and morpheme boundaries.

Southern Mutikw Taev Sitov [taəβ sitoβ] > Proto-Laqar /ˈtʰæw ˈsitʰɒw/ > Old Laqar To Seto > Early Middle Laqar To Seto [ˈtʰo ˈsetʰo] Southern Mutikw Vaem He Se Se [vaəmhəsəsə] > Proto-Laqar /wæmˈhæsæsæ/ > Old Laqar Wəmhassə > Early Middle Laqar Wąmassə [ˈwãmasːə] Southern Mutikw Tnet Tinew [tnət tin...

Forms like "The system just crashed, says me." are grammatical to me, even though I cannot figure out how they are, because when by itself the subject ought to be I, and only becomes me (and only in everyday speech, not in higher registers) when there are multiple subjects including a 1S subject.

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Got it.

What are likely outcomes for /r̥ʲ rʲ/, if any exist?

Historical /rʲ/ in Polish became modern Polish /ʐ/. This in turn can be devoiced to [ʂ].

Interestingly enough, while I mostly pronounce it the Spanish way, I think I pronounce the first vowel in leche as /ɛ/, at least in context of that phrase. That's weird--I know perfectly well it's supposed to be /e/, and I learned about the food from Spanish speakers. Meh, Spanish doesn't distingui...

Early Middle Laqar: xòz "arrows" (f., col.), from Proto-Laqar *xʷɒːz xòzla "arrows" (f., col., 1S-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *xʷɒːz and Proto-Laqar *-læː xòzni "arrows" (f., col., 1P-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *xʷɒːz and Proto-Laqar *-niː xòzi "arrows" (f., col., 2SM-possessed), from Proto-Laqar...

Early Middle Laqar: húlcə "stagger, stumble" (verbal noun, pfv.), from Proto-Laqar *hulæ and Proto-Laqar *-tsʰæ húlə "stagger, stumble" (2S subject, imp.), from Proto-Laqar *hulæ húlo "stagger, stumble" (2P subject, imp.), from Proto-Laqar *hulæ and Proto-Laqar *-χu holló "stagger, stumble" (1S subj...

This is a general place to post paradigms, whether partial or full, in your languages.

I didn't know people (read: Americans) pronounced dulce de leche as something other than /ˈdulseɪ deɪ ˈleɪtʃeɪ/ or /ˈdʌlseɪ deɪ ˈleɪtʃeɪ/

next: arrow; rocket; ballistic projectile Early Middle Laqar: xòz "arrows" (f., col.), from Proto-Laqar *xʷɒːz xòzla "arrows" (f., col., 1S-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *xʷɒːz and Proto-Laqar *-læː xòzni "arrows" (f., col., 1P-possessed), from Proto-Laqar *xʷɒːz and Proto-Laqar *-niː xòzi "arrows" ...