Omzinesý wrote: ↑
27 Jun 2019 14:52
Have you now introduced rounded front vowels into your lang or is this some descendant of what you developed the first?
It would be simpler if you make another thread and just cross-link it with this one, if they are two langs.
I am playing around with front rounded vowels still. I included them here because they nicely preserve the ablaut in the Class IIa verbs. However some dialects may have unrounded them, I think given the timespan of 1800 years and Crimea's rather rugged geography there would be quite a few Crimean Gothic dialects. I didn't think the changes were enough to warrant another thread.
Perhaps what you are seeing here is "Early Modern" Gothish, which is quite similar to Busbecq's Crimean Gothic, and additional changes I introduce will be the more modern Gothish language.
Yeah, I mean that's what I would do in that situation. Although maybe just in the past tense? That seems more likely to get regularized.
I think this looks great. I especially like the leveling of the first person, present indicative to the vowel of the second and third persons. Gives the whole paradigm a nice singular/plural contrast taht could be retained even in more inflectional endings are lost.
Thanks for the compliment!
You are correct, that is what I have so far found in other paradigms, such as Class V verbs. In fact, I had just gotten done working on Class V verbs. The regular e: > i: change nicely distinguishes the subjunctive from the indicative here:
Now I could even go further and regularize the indicative to always have the vowel /e/ (as it does in the past tense) to the present tense). Tell me what you think.
Zekoslav wrote: ↑
27 Jun 2019 17:43
Overall it looks nice, personally the <dede> sequence looks a bit repetitive, <budedeþ> in particular is quite a tongue twister!
Other than that, I got two questions:
1. Did you mean that the past participle got an extra -t on analogy with the present participle, and not the other way around (as you've written), since that's what your examples seem to show?
2. How did the 3. sg. ending get a different consonant from the 2. pl. ending?
You are right, it is quite a tongue twister, and I suspect schwa will be syncoped in casual speach, so that the form lisede
(and in fact this was raised by one scholar as a likely source for the Crimean Gothic word lista
meaning "little," although in my mind a connection with English "least" or Gothic "leitils" is more likely.)
To answer your questions:
1. Yes that is my mistake, however I reversed this change after seeing that it merges the two in other paradigms.
2. Two totally separate sound changes:
ð > d / V_V (c.f. "bruder")
b β d ð z g ɣ > p f t θ s k x / _#
Hence why you get liset as the third person singular, but liseþ in the second person plural.
(Although it should be noted that the actual corpus suggests Crimean Gothic merged /θ/ and /t/ in these positions, e.g. plut, alt. Furthermore, -t may drop in analogy with the 3rd person of other forms, like in the subjunctive.)