[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Hi!
Benct Philip Jonsson writes:
> 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!
I think mainly it's the amount of information that is a bit confusing.
It looks well-organised, however, and if it *is* much there is to say,
then, well, it cannot be reduced, of course.
Maybe when explaining some interesting detail with references to the
tables, it would a nice introduction.
Anyway, I did not present my own tables in any readable form, so I am
actually the wrong person to ask for improvements here.
> > 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!
Kærar þakkir! :-)
> 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_,"
> #
>...
> # 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.
That's an interesting excerpt. What's the book title? I'm sure it is
hard to obtain, right? So far, any book I needed for this project
turned out to be hard to obtain. Fortunately, there is a lot of
online stuff.
BTW, I got my Meyer Lübke (1st print run). However, it is
water-damaged a bit (ironically, it's from Amsterdam...:-))), but it's
perfectly readable and I am going to have a bookbinder make a new
cover for it. The publisher told me they are going to reissue it
again next year, and I will probably get a new one then.
> 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? :-)
Well, why not, there're a lot of areas the Institute of Parallel
Histories have not reported about yet. :-)
My friend who does the conhistory in this project is currently busy
drawing language maps showing the overall distribution of language
families. I will show you as soon as he thinks they can be published.
Will it be a Northern Romance lang? I saw you write /S/ as {sch},
which looks vaguely familiar to me. :-) What are the overall design
goals for that language? Is the GMP inspired by Germanic? In that
case, I think it would be classified as Northern Romance *there*.
**Henrik