[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Henrik Theiling skrev:
Hi! Benct Philip Jonsson <melroch@hidden.email> writes:Some very sketchy stuff on my Romlang #3 is at <http://wiki.frath.net/User:Melroch/Romlang_3_sketch>In particular I wonder if the tables are intelligible?Almost. :-)
OK, I'm working on them -- in particular by edding numbered and linked notes to replace/supplement the "random notes". Anywhay, *what* is it that is confusing? After all that is what I want to know!
However, /ks/ > /sk/ is great!
And I forgat to include it in the table. Thanks for reminding me!
I am so unsatisfied with /re:ks/ and /vi:ksi:/ in Latin -- it just does not derive well into Þrjótrunn. In the latter case, I even use the supine stem in the preterite (former perfect), so 'I lived' is'já ýkti'. With a metathesis, the perfect stem would very nicely become 'já ýski' /jau): i:scI/! May I steal it? :-)
Að sjálvsagðu! It actually happened at least in
some words in real VL. Here is what Grandgent has
to say about X (minus references to works published
before and around 1900! :-) See especially the
last paragraph:
# _X_ stood for _ks_: After a consonant _ks_ early
# tended to become _s_: Plautus uses _mers_ for
# _merx_; Caper, _"cals_ dicendum, ubi materia est,
# per _s_,"
#
# _By the second or third century _ks_ before a
# consonant was reduced to _s_: _sestus_ is common in
# inscriptions (Σέστος); _destera_; dester; _mextum_
# for _maestum_. So _ex- > es-_ in _excutere,
# exponere_, etc.: cf. _extimare_ for _aestimare_.
# Hence sometimes, by analogy, _es-_ for _ex-_ before
# vowels, as in _*essagium_, but not in _exire_.
#
# At about the same time final _ks_ became _s_, except
# in monosyllables : _cojus, cosnjus, milex, pregnax =
# praegnans, subornatris_, etc., in inscriptions (cf.
# _xanto_, etc.); _felis_, fifth century; Appendix
# Probi, "_aries_ non _ariex_," "_locuples_ non
# _locuplex_," "_miles_ non _milex_," "_poples_ non
# _poplex_."
#
# In parts of Italy _ks_ between vowels was
# assimilated into _ss_ by the first century, but this
# was only local: ALESAN[DER]; BISSIT BISIT VISIT =
# _vixit_. {In Gaul} [ks] > [xs], {along with [kt] >
# [xt], perhaps due to Celtic influence}.
#
# There are some examples, in late Latin, of a
# metathesis of _ks_ into _sk_ : _axilla > ascella_;
# _buxus > *buscus_; _vixit_ > VIXCIT (i. e.,
# _viscit_)_. On the other hand, _Priscilla_ >
# PRIXSILLA. In northern Gaul apparently _sk_
# regularly became _ks_, as in _cresco, nasco_, etc.
I figured that if _sk > ks_ was general in Northern
Gaul then perhaps the reverse was general sòmewhere!
Perhaps R3 belongs to the Þrjótrunn universe? :-)
**Henrik
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)