[YG Conlang Archives] > [romanceconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@hidden.email> > As far as I know, the difference between these two > groups is of the same > character as the difference between East- and > West-Romance, and P- and > Q-Celtic. > An interesting phenomenon: Italic can be subdivided > into P-Italic and Q-Italic, > and Romance can be subdivided into P-Romance and > Q-Romance. And Carrajena is a con-P-Romancelang. What an aglutinated glop of a word! Con-P-Romancelang. An incredible pity > that no P-Italic language has survived! So true! > Apart from that, as far as I know Oscan and Umbrian, > they are undeniably sister > languages of Latin. Fascinating languages, both. An > interesting future conlang > project could be the resurrection of one of these > two as a contemporary > language. > > Jan > And what a challenge it would be! I don't think there's an overly large amount of vocab preserved from any of the other Italiclangs, is there? What would you use to reconstruct unattested roots? Could they be cobbled by looking at older forms of Latin and comparing them with Greek? Speaking of Greek, there's another pitty. All the varieties of Greek that have died out without leaving daughter langs. IIRC Tsakonian is the only non-Attic Greeklang currently spoken. I wonder why, with all the multitudes of us constructiong Romancelangs, I'm not aware of anyone doing Greeklangs. Is there anyone? Adam