Epenthetic E patterns

[Hrakkar]

From the wiki, to demonstrate the use of epenthetic /-e/ on inanimate nouns:

        khewo → khewe
        mawizzi → mawizze
        alegra → alegre
        kendra → kendre
        zhalia → zhalie

Per the text given, these all make sense, but the last one. zhalia does not end with a lone vowel. Why does it get the /-e/?

[Najahho]

you have to think that maybe the root is actually zhali- and then you would get a consonant ending.

Maybe the root used a semi-vowel, zhaly- (or [dzhalj] in phonetics) so it'd be similar to khewo, and then rightfully gets the -e.

[Hrakkar]

you have to think that maybe the root is actually zhali- and then you would get a consonant ending.

But zhali would not be a problem, as there is still a vowel there after the /a/ has been removed. If the root was zhal, and the /ia/ was something that meant 'nominative', this would make sense. But we have zhalie, so this can't be the case.

Maybe the root used a semi-vowel, zhaly- (or [dzhalj] in phonetics) so it'd be similar to khewo, and then rightfully gets the -e.

Maybe. But I know of no other example of that.

[Najahho]

you have to think that maybe the root is actually zhali- and then you would get a consonant ending.

But zhali would not be a problem, as there is still a vowel there after the /a/ has been removed. If the root was zhal, and the /ia/ was something that meant 'nominative', this would make sense. But we have zhalie, so this can't be the case.

Maybe the root used a semi-vowel, zhaly- (or [dzhalj] in phonetics) so it'd be similar to khewo, and then rightfully gets the -e.

Maybe. But I know of no other example of that.

But the point is that, as I said, the root could probably be "zhali" and maybe the -li is taken as a consonant, probably it comes from an L plus a semi-consonant, so then you have an ending in consonant. Doesn't matter that "i" is a vowel, because we are talking about a proto-language or a root. For example, in Spanish you have "ll" which used to be a palatal lateral approximant, it is taken actually as a single consonant but pronounced similar to "ly". So, "llave" sounds "lyave"but the ll is one single consonant. You are just analyzing dothraki but thinking strictly in English and its rules.

[Najahho]

The really funny thing that you'll be wondering later is... why does jela get acc. jel and how do you differentiate it from the acc. of jelli? *mind blown*

Haha!
Zalak che jel che jel? "Do I want cheese or lemon?" :p

[Hrakkar]

Good questions for David this evening. I hope you can join us!

[Qvaak]

The really funny thing that you'll be wondering later is... why does jela get acc. jel and how do you differentiate it from the acc. of jelli? *mind blown*

We have actually discussed the word pair in question with David (http://www.dothraki.com/2011/09/long-or-doubled-consonants/#comments). They truly become homonyms when inflected in accusative. That apparently happens sometimes. Happens in Finnish too, so my mind was luckily prepared.

Per the text given, these all make sense, but the last one. zhalia does not end with a lone vowel. Why does it get the /-e/?

Zhalia is a relatively new find. The way I see it, all other inanimate nouns we know have a stem ending in consonant. Some get a random vowel as a suffix for nominative, some don't, but the stem is the same type. Zhalia has the random vowel suffix too, but when you drop it off, the stem still ends in a vowel. This must be addressed in one way or another, and unsurprisingly it's addressed by an epenthetic /-e/. I say unsurprisingly because a) having accusatives that end in random vowels would be very confusing; b) losing the last syllabe without a trace would kind of mess the shape of the word.
Also: some consonat sounds (ɣ-phonemes at least) along Dothraki's history have become silent, which is why there are so often strings of vowels each pronounced in a separate syllabe (eg. leɣi became lei), so it's likely zhalia has been zhaliɣa.

I wrote the text given in the wiki. It's that "If the last syllabe of an inanimate noun is a lone vowel, and would thus be completely lost in accusative, an epenthetic /-e/ will mark it." that was meant to address the situation. I see now that I fumbled it. "Lone vowel" was meant to mean "a syllabe containing only a vowel" but is more likely to be be understood as "a vowel following a consonant", which is very much not what I meant to say.

[Najahho]

So in Finnish lemon and cheese are indistinguishable from one another? Or did you mean some other word? If so I'd love to know about it... in the case I cited, seeing that they are both kinds of food, isn't it confusing? If I had to say "I like cheese, but not lemons" I would be using the very same word 

Yes, that was my point exactly with "zhalia" it was my guess that this -li ending had to have been a consonant ending at some point or something like that, now that you mention this it all makes sense. You could just as well have said that the -li there gets taken as a whole ending in its own right and ta-da.

[Qvaak]

So in Finnish lemon and cheese are indistinguishable from one another? Or did you mean some other word? If so I'd love to know about it... in the case I cited, seeing that they are both kinds of food, isn't it confusing? If I had to say "I like cheese, but not lemons" I would be using the very same word

No, not lemon and cheese. Finnish is pretty highly inflectional language and sometimes words that are not homonyms in their basic (dictionary) form become homonyms when inflected in certain way. It's not that common, and it's not like it does not to some extent happen in English too, so it was a bit silly to even bring it up, but I do feel "at home" with this kind of thing. It's generally more baffling to me that English can manage the insane amount of complete homonyms (or homophones, specifically) that it has. When only some inflections are the same, confusions are quite easy to dodge - or can be amended with little trouble.

It is peculiar that there is homonymity with words so close in meaning, true enough. Mostly homonyms that surface through inflection are in my experience either so close in meaning that losing the difference does little enough harm (in Dothraki I think you can lose at least some diminutives and in verbs some stative/dynamic differences) or so far away that confusion very rarely arises.

Anha zalak mae, jin jelli, vosma anha zalak mae vosecchi, jin jela. ~ I want cheese, but I certainly don't want lemon.