[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Isaac Penzev a sk�ipt: > Or is it _sk�ypt_? No. Wenedyk makes the distinction between [i] and [I]. Slezan doesn't: everything becomes [i]. <y> exists in Slezan, but fulfills the role of non-palatalising <i>. Because Latin /i/ always palatalises in the regular development of the language, <y> occurs only in later borrowings from other languages. > 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 be patient an await my GMP! :)) I might have something online tonight. A draft, at least. > I gave a more substantial look at the GMP, and as result have > certain doubts. See above. Well, I hope most problems will be solved in the Slezan GMP. > 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. Ah, I see. That's a relief. I'd say that so many hours of simultaneous translation is virtually impossible, unless somebody is some kind of "idiot savant". > No time for conlanging activity :( Oh well, that's life. Unless of course you can succeed in making money out of it. Isn't Ukraine going to produce a SF movie sooner or later? > > > > The transformation is more or less > > > > regular: _diurnum_ > _*djr.nU_ (_r._ = syllabic _r_) > _*dzrn_ > > > > > _zrn_. > > First /u/ is long. Does it have no influence? Not yet. :) But that may still change. If we do this together, I'll take no more than 51 % of the shares. :)) If it does have influence, we get _zurn_. > > Hence Polish "miedza" and "noc", where Russian has "med�a" and > > "no�'". > > Ru. is "me�a". Oops. So much for my Russian! > I see. I need to investigate Czech sound changes > table more thoroughly. I just don't feel it ok! Just don't investigate them too closely (at least not for this project). I explicitly don't want Slezan to do with Czech what Wenedyk does with Polish. Slezan undoubtedly has something in common with Czech: part of its orthography is based on it, and it borrows some Czech sound changes too. But nothing more than that. And there are considerable differences too: no _�_ (e-hachek), _�_ (u-ring), no acutes, no stress on the first syllable (at least not a priori), and no long-vs-short distinction. > It might be _edz�_. But take into account that _o_ in _hodie_ is > stressed. Is it? I would have assume _ho.'di.e_ rather than _'ho.di.e'_. > So it may be hodie > odje > odz� > vodz� (with prothetic _v_). Hahaha! I hadn't thought of prothetic _v_. I must say that in Polish (and Czech AFAIK) it is virtually unknown. But of course, that shouldn't keep us from having it in Slezan! Actually, at present it does exist in Wenedyk and Slezan, but only before /a~/ and /o~/. Do you have any idea under which conditions prothetic _v_ occurs in Russian and Ukrainian? For the rest, I suppose you are right: _(v)odz�_. But now that I'm working on the GMP I'm wondering if we shouldn't turn all instances of _dz_ into _z_. In that case we would get _(v)oz�_ (or perhaps _(v)oze_). > > > �est jest muc be�, if I understood you correctly. [...] > > Latin _lt_ cluster often behaves like _ct_. See VL multu, lacte > > Sp. mucho, leche. Interesting. Does this phenomenon occur in any other romlang than Spanish (which after all is quite far away from Slezan)? Nevertheless, I like your idea, and added it to the GMP. However, in that case we would get _mucht_ [muxt] or perhaps _much_ [mux]. This is how it works: _multum_ > _ml.tU_ > _mu5xtU_ > _mucht_. Or something like that. > 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_. I absolutely agree! A excellent idea. One thing: I would shift the apostrophe one position: _�e'st_. That would also have another advantage: we can easily apply the same thing to other cases: _�e'st_ < _�est jest_ "this is" _�i'st_ < _�i jest_ "who is" _ko'st_ < _ko jest_ "what is" and perhaps even: _i'st_, _il'st_, _ile'st_ < _il jest_ "he is" _ila'st_ < _ila jest_ "she is" > > > To� bon, > > > > Likewise. But why the _t'_? > > Either a typo (damn Cz layout), or from G.sn. tot�us... Hmm. I would still say "tot bon". Or perhaps "totev bon", but that would have a different meaning. > Even if I start designing alternative non-standard Slezan dialect > instead of joining yours, you can always ask me about vocabulary. Hehe. I fully count on you, and I hope you will send me every progress you make with it! BTW, Slezan does not really have a standard dialect anyway. > Ami�i por sepr! "Pro sepr", in my dialect. Or perhaps even "pru". > > A �evider! > > A prutu, Pa (Slavic borrowing), Jan ===== "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito." ________________________________________________________________________ BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save �80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk