[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: nu alltr e gw alltr?
Andrew Fferreir yscrifef:
> I am reluctant to state that a(b)
> survived in Brithenig, the only place in greater Romania that it did
> survive is in Italian 'da', otherwise it becomes obscured with a(d) and
> replaced with other prepositions.
Ah, but in B. there is a clear separation between "a(d)" and "a(b)"
based on the different mutation: spirant (reflecting gemination)
vs. null or at most soft (reflecting no gemination). The other
Romance languages didn't have this advantage.
> > "parḷ chiaro" comes out as
> > [par lok kja ro].
> Interesting feature. I wonder how it would work in Brithenig.
It corresponds to spirant mutation, I think. Also, final stress
is exceptional in It., not typical.
> As for alchyn + nasal mutation marking the indefinite plural I think it is
> more likely to remain + spirant mutation. More information when at hand.
Okay, you are probably right; < ALICUIU/ALICUIA, so the n is intrusive.
BTW, in Italian nasals are assimilated to following consonants, so
"con Paolo" = [kompaulo] whereas "con Carlo" = [koNkarlo]. Is this
true in B. nasal mutation as well, where the "n" still remains, as
in the prep. "in"?
John Cowan email@example.com
e'osai ko sarji la lojban.