[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Whither <QV_>?



Firstly, thanks to all of those who answered my earlier post.  You
have all given me some helpful ideas.  It *is* a little early to be
thinking about my orthography in anything but the vaguest terms, but
sometimes its good to step back from the detail and look at the
horizon.  Helps to give me an idea where I might be going.

Anyway, time to strap my nose firmly back on to the phonology
grindstone.  Since you need to know where you are starting from,
before you can go anywhere, I'm sorting out how Latin would originally
have been pronounced in my language area, before setting off on its
own unique course (and thanks particulary, Henrik, for your thoughts
on the vowels - which echoed and reaffirmed what I was thinking).
Which brings me to how an ethnic speaker of Proto-Germanic might
pronounce a latin /k_w/ (<QV>).

Since PGmc and WGmc had the glide /w/, the most likely realisation of
/k_w/, I think, would be (arrgh this keyboard has no square brackets!)
'kw'.  However, If I go with /kw/ I will eventually end up with a
horribly esperantine /kv/ (or perhaps even /kxv/ or /kCv/, if that's
pronounceable). Yuck.  So, as if by magic, that doesn't happen.

That leaves me perhaps /ku/, /ku:/, /ku@/ or even just /k/ (or maybe
just /k/ under certain conditions, e.g. /ka/, with one of the others
for different conditions, perhaps like /kui/)  Any thoughts? How did
this sound develop in your langs, and actual romance?

Last question today.  Did word-final /t/ in latin get dropped
unconditionally, like <_M>, or in specific circumstances only?  Any
idea when this generally happened? I have conflicting sources, some
say it was a feature of late CL, others that it was a feature only
much later in VL, or indeed after the various languages separated.


- Peter.