[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jan van Steenbergen a sk�ipt: > --- 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>. Well, that was clear, but I was expecting some consonants might have influence on vowels. > Because Latin /i/ always palatalises in the regular > development of the language, <y> occurs only in later borrowings from other > languages. Clear. But strange. > > 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. Oh no! I mean that I understand how they work. I'm just not completely satisfied with them. Too much palatalising. Or is it my subconscious reaction to differences between Russian (maximal palatalization) and Ukrainian (much less palatalized phonemes, and full of non-palatalizing /e/'s and /I/'s... > > 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". You are right. 30-35 minutes, and you're a squeezed lemon, if you're doing synchro. > > 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? Mocking? Hehe. > > > > > 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. :)) That's fair. If we can come to agreement as concerns excessive palatalization and some other sound change rules, I promise to keep all the initial material intact, and work only on further development. > > Ru. is "me�a". > > Oops. So much for my Russian! You can always rely on me as a native speaker. > > 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. I see. I'll keep in line with it. > And there are considerable differences too: no _�_ (e-hachek), That's the thing I miss most of all. In all this Slezan seems closer to Slovakian, btw. > > 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'_. No. It's clearly _"ho.di.e_. Cf. It. _'oggi_, Es. _hoy_. > > 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! So, let's have it. It's very Slavic! > Do you have any idea under which conditions prothetic _v_ occurs in Russian and > Ukrainian? It's rare in Russian (maybe, because of Church Slavic influence), but are abundant in Ukrainian. Almost all initial /o/'s and /u/'s get prothetic /v-/ in native words: _visim_ (< *osIm) 'eight', _voho�_ 'fire', _vulycia_ 'street'. > 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_). It's up to you. As for _voz�_, I like it. > > 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)? _ct_ mutates in most langs, probably due to Celtic substratum, _lt_ is less frequent. But anyway, _l+C_ often behaves strange. > 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. It needs further investigation, as Adam Walker wrote: > So, it looks like Spanish, and Portuguese pattern then > together while Italian and Romanian do not. Iberia is too far from Slezia. So, _mltu_ can be more possible. > > 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" Very good. And if we have _jen_ for isolated preposition 'in' instead of _je_, keeping it merging into _jela_, _jelu_ etc., it may liberate _je_ for alternative parallel form for _jest_. > Hmm. I would still say "tot bon". Or perhaps "totev bon", but that would have a > different meaning. Ok. "Tot bon" sounds fine. > > 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 prog ress you make > with it! BTW, Slezan does not really have a standard dialect anyway. Serious work may start only after Feb 9. I think we'd better discuss it privately off-list, and present here the final product. My usual approach is as follows: I mutate real words till they start sounding aestheticly pleasing, and then analyse the sound changes :)) A �evider i tot bon, -- Yitzik