DesEsseintes wrote:There will be several different plural suffixes in Hííenununóóoþa. Animate and inanimate nouns will use different suffixes, and if I ever manage to come up with a noun class system that pleaseth mine eyes, there will be different plurals for the different classes. I'm aiming for the level of irregularity found in the plurals of Cheyenne nouns, which are extremely beautiful.
What do you mean about noun class and such? Would such a system replace the animacy distinction?
Also, are plurals in Cheyenne extremely irregular, or just irregular enough that it's notable, but not cumbersome?
DesEsseintes wrote:Unfortunately, I have only decided on a single ending so far: -tseh. This ending may have allomorphs in -eh -weh -leh -seh.
What kinds of situations would cause these allomorphs to appear?
DesEsseintes wrote:Other endings I'm considering are -toht -soht -tsıt -sıt and others.
-tsıt and
-sıt are my favorites of the four, for whatever reason, if you're looking for that kind of input.
DesEsseintes wrote:I want Hííenununóóoþa nouns to be frequently reduced in their surface forms.
Stem-final h ł n s þ f frequently drop when they occur word-finally, i.e. without a suffix. The preceding vowel may also be affected.
As an example, the word stem *ótsetseł means hare (or similar), but this surfaces as ótsetse in the singular.
When the plural ending -tseh is added, the resulting form is:
ótsetseł + tseh → ótsetsełłtseh
Lovely!
DesEsseintes wrote:Here we witness another phenomenon. When an accented stem-final syllable is reduced, the accent moves onto the preceding syllable and - at least in this case - results in a low tone. (Low tone may be restricted to heavy syllables - this is still unclear.)
You mention above that the vowel preceding a dropped ending may also be affected… is this what you were referring to?
Also, how would you define a heavy syllable (or was that the part that's still unclear)?
DesEsseintes wrote:The reason for the gemination of ł and h is not fully understood, but at the moment I'm toying with the idea that the sounds undergo gemination when located an even number of syllables after the accented syllable.
Compare ííxke - coyote (or similar) from the stem ííxkeıs:
ííxkeıs + tseh → ííxkeıstseh (no gemination)
I'm rather tired at the moment, so the answer might be quite obvious, but I'm confused about this part.
In the example of
ííxkeıstseh, <x> (an allophone of <h>, unless I'm remembering completely wrong) isn't geminated because, depending on how you break down the word, it's either part of the accented syllable, or an odd number of syllables (just one) after it (I'd guess it's part of it, but I could be wrong). In
ótsetsełłtseh, <ł> is geminated because it occurs two syllables (an even number) after the accented syllable.
However, in
oołéhhtseh, the <h> is either part of the accented syllable, or the syllable directly after it (again, I'd guess part of it, but I can't be sure). Is this part of the fact that this kind of gemination isn't fully understood, or am I missing something?
DesEsseintes wrote:ółe (stem óeıł) → óeıłtseh
Meaning "eye", perhaps?
I'd suggest "six" for the word below it, but that would be more of a stretch.
DesEsseintes wrote:Some nouns with stems ending in h ł n s undergo metathesis rather than elision.
So one would expect those two words to surface as
óeı and
síeı in the singular if not for this? What makes them different? The fact that their final stem consonants are preceded by two vowels or more instead of one?
DesEsseintes wrote:I might choose to use conflated endings here and change these plurals to óeıłłeh and síeısseh, respectively.
I like the idea of changing up the endings a little here.
DesEsseintes wrote:That's it for now, I guess. This may not seem much, but these forms are the first ones I'm relatively pleased with. Hopefully, I'll be able to add to this soon.
Things are looking good, in my opinion! I hope to see more soon, but don't rush yourself. I understand how long it can sometimes take to make oneself satisfied with things like this.
DesEsseintes wrote:The phonology has also undergone yet another revision, but this time it was pretty minor. I might make a post about it, or perhaps it's unnecessary. An outline of the changes was posted in the random phonologies thread
here.
I'd be interested in hearing more about it, but if you feel it's unnecessary to talk more about it, that's alright.
Also, this appears to be post #3000 for me.