Celtica sine mutationibus

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
alice
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Three of them

Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by alice »

If the Language Deity issued a decree that initial mutations in the Celtic languages were henceforward prohibited, how much damage would actually be done? The only area of ambiguity I can thing of is third-person possessive pronouns, and even here there are workarounds.
Zompist's Markov generator wrote:it was labelled" orange marmalade," but that is unutterably hideous.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by Salmoneus »

alice wrote:If the Language Deity issued a decree that initial mutations in the Celtic languages were henceforward prohibited, how much damage would actually be done? The only area of ambiguity I can thing of is third-person possessive pronouns, and even here there are workarounds.
In writing, I think the effects would be limited, at least in Irish. After all, the exact rules already differ between dialects.

I do think they have a role in increasing redundancy, however. There are so many words that can be easily misheard, and mutations help distinguish them. So, for example, in addition to a (her), a (his), and a (their) (not to mention a, relative clause marker (I think?)), there's also an (definite article), which in many cases is apparently pronounced as though it were a, and I think an (question marker) might be too, and that's before we get to ag (at), ag (technically also at but actually used in periphrastic verb conjugation), ar (on), ár (our) and so forth. Being able to match these up against three forms of the following word is potentially helpful.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

malloc
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:35 pm
Location: 0xF745

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by malloc »

Salmoneus wrote:There are so many words that can be easily misheard, and mutations help distinguish them.
On the other hand, mutations also distort and merge words, so eliminating them would eliminate the ambiguities and confusion that comes with that.

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by linguoboy »

alice wrote:If the Language Deity issued a decree that initial mutations in the Celtic languages were henceforward prohibited, how much damage would actually be done? The only area of ambiguity I can thing of is third-person possessive pronouns, and even here there are workarounds.
What would those be?

Out of curiosity, does anyone else in this discussion actually speak a Celtic language? (I know Salmoneus has been learning Irish, but I don't think he's ever used it orally.)

User avatar
mèþru
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Contact:

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by mèþru »

Something new would definitely be necessary to separate all those "a"s and "an". Maybe mutations give tones to preceding monosyllables before being lost, and these tones stay.

I do not know any Celtic languages. I had interest many years ago, before joining the board, in making a Gaulish descendant with a heavy Frankish influence in its early history and a heavy Alemannic influence later on.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by linguoboy »

Salmoneus wrote:and that's before we get to ag (at), ag (technically also at but actually used in periphrastic verb conjugation)
I would say there's no "technically" about it. These are different words, distinct in pronunciation as well as morphosyntax. The most common pronunciation of the preposition ag is [ɛɟ], following a general tendency for 3.sg.m forms to displace the root forms of inflected prepositions. The particle ag is never pronounced this way. Depending on what proceeds and follows, it may occur as [ə], [əg], [g], [ɣ], [ɪɟ], or [ɟ]. In some cases, it is etymologically derived from the preposition do--which (to add to the confusion of as Sal mentioned) is often realised as /ə/.

In terms of disambiguation, however, the fact that ag never lenites a directly following verbal noun whereas do always does is very helpful given the frequency of the construction (OBJ) + a/do + VN in contemporary Irish.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by Salmoneus »

linguoboy wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:and that's before we get to ag (at), ag (technically also at but actually used in periphrastic verb conjugation)
I would say there's no "technically" about it. These are different words, distinct in pronunciation as well as morphosyntax. The most common pronunciation of the preposition ag is [ɛɟ], following a general tendency for 3.sg.m forms to displace the root forms of inflected prepositions
Oh, that's why it is! Thanks! [it would be nice if there seemed to be a way to derive inflected prepositions themselves other than "role some dice", but never mind]
. The particle ag is never pronounced this way.
Oh, OK, good to know.
[I'm still (or rather again) at the very simple "my brothers are in the refrigerators"* stage; I've come across the continuous, but not enough to have noticed the pronunciation difference.]

*possibly tá mo dheartháireacha sa chuisneoirí, hopefully.
Depending on what proceeds and follows, it may occur as [ə], [əg], [g], [ɣ], [ɪɟ], or [ɟ].
Because of course it can.
In some cases, it is etymologically derived from the preposition do--which (to add to the confusion of as Sal mentioned) is often realised as /ə/.
*shakes fist at heavens*
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by linguoboy »

Salmoneus wrote:*possibly tá mo dheartháireacha sa chuisneoirí, hopefully.
Singular sa, plural sna (no lenition).
Salmoneus wrote:
Depending on what proceeds and follows, it may occur as [ə], [əg], [g], [ɣ], [ɪɟ], or [ɟ].
Because of course it can.
With the exception of [ɣ], these are predictable if you assume underlying /əg/. /g/ is deleted before consonants whereas /ə/ is elided after vowels. [ɟ] is just a phonetic realisation of /gʲ/ due to regressive assimilation before front vowels.
Salmoneus wrote:
In some cases, it is etymologically derived from the preposition do--which (to add to the confusion of as Sal mentioned) is often realised as /ə/.
*shakes fist at heavens*
I probably shouldn't mention that some dialects merge de and do, should I?

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by Salmoneus »

linguoboy wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:*possibly tá mo dheartháireacha sa chuisneoirí, hopefully.
Singular sa, plural sna (no lenition).
Oh, OK. On the bright side, I don't think I've ever known that, so at least I didn't forget it.

For interested spectators: deartháir and deirfiúr (and their plurals) are pronounced a) in ways only tangentially related to their spelling, and b) in a dozen completely different ways depending what village you're in.
Salmoneus wrote:
Depending on what proceeds and follows, it may occur as [ə], [əg], [g], [ɣ], [ɪɟ], or [ɟ].
Because of course it can.
With the exception of [ɣ], these are predictable if you assume underlying /əg/. /g/ is deleted before consonants whereas /ə/ is elided after vowels. [ɟ] is just a phonetic realisation of /gʲ/ due to regressive assimilation before front vowels.
So after a vowel AND before a consonant, does it elide away entirely?
Salmoneus wrote:
In some cases, it is etymologically derived from the preposition do--which (to add to the confusion of as Sal mentioned) is often realised as /ə/.
*shakes fist at heavens*
I probably shouldn't mention that some dialects merge de and do, should I?
[/quote]
'shakes fist at heavens*

One day I will find something in Irish that isn't stupidly complicated/weirdly alien/unpronounceable... one day...
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by linguoboy »

Salmoneus wrote:For interested spectators: deartháir and deirfiúr (and their plurals) are pronounced a) in ways only tangentially related to their spelling, and b) in a dozen completely different ways depending what village you're in.
I thought about pointing that out, along with the fact that the pre-reform spelling is dear(bh-)bhráthair, reflecting its etymology as "true" (dearbh "brother" (bráthair) as a consequence of the familiar meaning being usurped by religious usage, but some things I think it's best that people discover on their own.
Salmoneus wrote:So after a vowel AND before a consonant, does it elide away entirely?
Yup.
Salmoneus wrote:One day I will find something in Irish that isn't stupidly complicated/weirdly alien/unpronounceable... one day...
Probably the same day everyone else finds that out about English.

User avatar
Jonlang
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:21 am
Location: Cymru
Contact:

Re: Celtica sine mutationibus

Post by Jonlang »

alice wrote:If the Language Deity issued a decree that initial mutations in the Celtic languages were henceforward prohibited, how much damage would actually be done?
Well no one would heed it. I mean, the mutations aren't really optional. People (in speech) mutate naturally, because they're used to doing it. As a learner of Welsh picking up the habit of mutating is much easier and much more intuitive than I thought it would be, especially when you speak with Welsh speakers rather than trying to learn by yourself. The only one you can really get away with dropping is the aspirate mutation, and that's because a lot of Welsh speakers don't do it with /t/ and /p/, though it's still always used in writing.
My conlangery Twitter: @Jonlang_
Me? I'm just a lawn-mower; you can tell me by the way I walk.

Post Reply