[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jan van Steenbergen scripsit: > --- Isaac Penzev a sk�ipt: Or is it _sk�ypt_? > > _Diurnus_ would rather mean 'day', or '24-hours period' (Russian 'sutki'). > > It does indeed. But IMO a semantic shift is not at all unlikely. > And don't forget that we already have _d�z_ for "day"! I would not mind, but I don't think I'm ready to talk about words if I'm not sure about sounds and sound changes! > > Then, let us try! I've never had a joint project, so I'd like to experience > > smth new! > > Good! That will be better for the language too: if I would have to do it all > alone, Slezan would probably end up as a satellite of Wenedyk! I gave a more substantial look at the GMP, and as result have certain doubts. See above. > > > Well, are you familiar with the Wenedyk GMP on my website? > > > > I've seen it, but didn't make any serious study. Presently I don't have > > it at my comp, but I think to save it from the website is not breaking > > copywrongs :)) > > Hehe. Well, if this is of any comfort: you have my permission! :))) Downloaded and printed out. > > Ok, I'll try to figure them out. Makes much fun, esp. taking into > > acccount that for these two week I have 6-7 hours or oral interpreting > > every day 8-) > > 6-7 hours?! That's a hell of a job! Believe me, I have some experience with > interpreting, and I know how tiring 20 minutes can be! Well, that's not "synchro", those are just lectures in exegesis. A prof says a couple of words, I interprete, he speaks on etc. Taking a breath when looking for a precise quotation. No time for conlanging activity :( > Okay, I'll do my best. Perhaps tomorrow, otherwise next weekend. When it's > online, I'll let you know! No urgent need. I'm overloaded till Feb 9. > > > The transformation is more or less > > > regular: _diurnum_ > _*djr.nU_ (_r._ = syllabic _r_) > _*dzrn_ > _zrn_. First /u/ is long. Does it have no influence? > > Hmm. I thought it would give _d�_, that's why I corrected the wo rd _edze_ > > too. > > No, this is a typical West-Slavic thing: > _de_ > _d'e_ > _d�e_ > _dje_ > _dze_ > > Hence Polish "miedza" and "noc", where Russian has "med�a" and "no�'". Ru. is "me�a". I see. I need to investigate Czech sound changes table more thoroughly. I just don't feel it ok! > > Anyway, if it is spelled _edze_ in B. spelling, it *must* be _edzie_ in W. > > one! > > Yes, although I'm wondering now if it shouldn't be _edz�_ after all. Following > the rule I explained above, you see. It might be _edz�_. But take into account that _o_ in _hodie_ is stressed. So it may be hodie > odje > odz� > vodz� (with prothetic _v_). > Okay, if you think that's better than _edz�_, then let's go for it... See above. Anyway, I'd like to be sure about sound changes first... > > �est jest muc be�, if I understood you correctly. > > Excellent. Only the third word: if it is from L. "multum", then the Slevan word > would undoubtedly become "mlt"! In this case an adverb would be better, of > course, and so we can choose between "mlte" and "mltu". I think if prefer the > latter... Latin _lt_ cluster often behaves like _ct_. See VL multu, lacte > Sp. mucho, leche. And I don't like two similar words next to each other: _�est jest_ is terrible. If you don't want shorter variant form for _jest_, try an alternative for _�est_, e.g. _�e_, thus having smth like _�'est_. > > To� bon, > > Likewise. But why the _t'_? Either a typo (damn Cz layout), or from G.sn. tot�us... > > P.S. As for stratification of Romance vocabulary, I'll write later. For now > > see my reply to "rosa" thread. > > Yes, that's one of the harder things in romconlanging: which option shall I > choose. In Wenedyk, I usually follow my intuition. Even if I start designing alternative non-standard Slezan dialect instead of joining yours, you can always ask me about vocabulary. Ami�i por sepr! > A �evider! A prutu, -- Yitzik