MarcoP > 08-04-2019, 03:53 PM
Emma May Smith > 08-04-2019, 06:23 PM
MarcoP > 08-04-2019, 06:57 PM
(08-04-2019, 06:23 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Marco, one of the most amazing things about that diagram is the inability to cope with [i]. I'm sure it's not a failing of the principle, but it's really stark how [i] occurs all over the place.
It's also great to see yet another way of testing the script which shows the same set [e, a, o, y] split at the base from other glyphs.
Linda > 08-04-2019, 07:06 PM
Emma May Smith > 08-04-2019, 07:14 PM
(08-04-2019, 06:57 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Emma,
the way in which e,a,o,y differ from the other glyphs appears to be the clearest "phonological" fact. I agree that it is reassuring that several different methods arrive at the same result in this case.
Part of the problem with 'i' was an error in my EVA mapping: CUVA G corresponds to EVA:g (not EVA:il, I got confused with Currier's transcription which appears in the same table as CUVA on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). I apologize. I have now updated the graph.
It is still bizarre to see 'q' clustered with 'in', but at least all 'i's are still together at level 3.
MarcoP > 08-04-2019, 08:09 PM
(08-04-2019, 07:14 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(08-04-2019, 06:57 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Emma,
the way in which e,a,o,y differ from the other glyphs appears to be the clearest "phonological" fact. I agree that it is reassuring that several different methods arrive at the same result in this case.
Part of the problem with 'i' was an error in my EVA mapping: CUVA G corresponds to EVA:g (not EVA:il, I got confused with Currier's transcription which appears in the same table as CUVA on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). I apologize. I have now updated the graph.
It is still bizarre to see 'q' clustered with 'in', but at least all 'i's are still together at level 3.
Ah, I see! But, as you say, it's interesting that not only [q] but also [ch, sh], all of which tend toward the front of a word, cluster with [i] sequences which come at the end. Is the principle marking them as being in complementary distribution?
geoffreycaveney > 08-04-2019, 08:23 PM
(08-04-2019, 06:57 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(08-04-2019, 06:23 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's also great to see yet another way of testing the script which shows the same set [e, a, o, y] split at the base from other glyphs.
Hi Emma,
the way in which e,a,o,y differ from the other glyphs appears to be the clearest "phonological" fact. I agree that it is reassuring that several different methods arrive at the same result in this case.
Emma May Smith > 08-04-2019, 09:38 PM
geoffreycaveney > 08-04-2019, 10:15 PM
(08-04-2019, 09:38 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It might be worth reading my post You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I think it's also bearing in mind the possibility You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (though the latter is uncertain).
MarcoP > 09-04-2019, 08:24 AM
(08-04-2019, 10:15 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.about the alternation of final [-y] and [-aiin] as suffixes of the same roots: Many researchers have observed that the glyph [y] has the shape of the common medieval Latin ms abbreviation for the "-us" suffix. If [-y] is also being used here to represent a suffix "-Vs", then this alternation could represent for example [-y] = nominative "-Vs" and [-aiin] = accusative "-Vn". In this case, the vowel is written as [a] in the [aiin] suffix, but not written separately in the [y] suffix. Such an explanation could be valid for this phenomenon in a number of medieval European languages.