[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 15.3.2007 jsjonesmiami wrote:
> Lethino branched so early I don't think even ILLUI had
> developed.
I think ILLUI was *very* early in spoken Latin. It just
didn't make it into Classical written Latin.
> I've considered using the genitive forms for the dative as
> well, but am concerned about syntactical ambiguity.
>
I think you shouldn't be. You can always sneak in an AD to
unambiguously signal the dative. What more you can use SUUS
for the third person genitive, which would leave ILLORUM and
AD ILLORUM free for accusative and dative use. It's true
SUUS leaves the number of the possessor ambiguous, but Latin
and Spanish can evidently live with that.
>> Another possibility comes from Andalusian Spanish where
>> > syllable final s > h. In some dialects -- notably
>> > Granade�o -- h goes on to zero, but before that it
>> > causes a lowering in the preceding vowel, so that -as
>> > -es -os > /-& -E -O/ contrasting with /-a_" -e -o/ in
>> > the singular. If you don't want an eight vowel system
>> > you can have rising of [-e -o] so that you end up with
>> > /-a -i -u/ in the singular and /-e -e -o/ in the
>> > plural, which is gratifyingly wacky compared to 'real'
>> > Romlangs like Italian and Rumanian. Perhaps also an
>> > u > y > i sound change to make the wackiness complete?
>
> So far the pronouns (before dropping x) are: Acc.MS lu,
> Acc.FS la, Acc.MP lux, Acc.FP lax Dat.S li, Dat.P lix
>
> I already have a [y] from original u.
But that would only be long U| and not short U(,
wouldn't it?
U > y makes a o > u vs. os > ox > oh > Oh > O split all
the more likely. Even if you do differentiate O| > u
and O( > o in stressed syllables (or doesn't Lethino
have any /u/ at all?) vowel length was generally
lost in unstressed syllables, so that a distinction
there between
V/o based on the former presence of s > x > h > zero is
quite possible, quite aside from the fact that as a
Swedish speaker I find a distinction between unstressed
final u and o precarious! I guess most English speakers
wouls find a corresponding i/e distinction precarious,
which Swedes and Romance speakers have no problems with.
> I had another idea I'd like opinions on. Since the object
> pronouns are proclitic, the [x] isn't final and should
> probably be retained. However, it would still have to be
> dropped before [b], [d], and [dZ)]. What I'm thinking of
> is a partial mutation: change these to [v], [G], and [Z]
> after an original vowel and leave them unchanged after an
> original [x]. Initial [s] would also be affected, becoming
> [x] after an original vowel. Can I get away with mutating
> only these consonants?
Why not have similarly
p t tS k > f T S x / V _ V
sp st sk > p t k / V _ V.
The spelling _Lethino_ suggests you already have a
W > T change somewhere, am I right?
You would have to rethink your s > x change as a s > h
change, or at least VkV > VxV only after the x from s has
become zero in sk. Direct change s > h is actually quite
well attested, even in a well-known Romlang -- namely
French. Of course those h's went wholesale to zero later. A
merger between VsV and VKv surely wouldn't hurt either, and
perhaps you could have VfV > VhV as well. After all that is
the kind of thing that does happen in language.
Possibly you could have a distinction between Vs sV > VsV
versus Vs V and V sV > VxV.
You could also have sm sn sr sl > mm nn rr ll and then have
m > v and n > zero between vowels. You could also have sr
and sl become voiceless, or some other r/rr and l/ll
difference. r/rr > 4/r is of course ubiquitous. Iberian ll >
L > j (or L > Z in some varieties of Portuguese!)is well
known, but there is also l/ll > l/d`d` or w/l in some
Italian dialects. AFMOC Rhodrese has ll > r` (retroflex
flap). Welsh is one mutating language which strengthens
strong liquids further rather than weakening the weak
liquids further. As l > 5 > u / _ C, # is attested in
Romance and quite widespred cross- linguistically l/ll > w/l
might be a nice touch. As for spellings you could quite
possibly leave them at l/ll.
> This would also handle the definite article problem,
> although I'd have to consider whether adjectives mutated
> as well as nouns.
>
Why not? It seems to me mutation should be a purely phonetic
phenomenon, blind to syntax and other aspects of grammar, at
least to begin with.
--
/BP 8^)
--
Benct Philip Jonsson
mailto:melrochX@hidden.email (delete X!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If a language is a dialect with an army and a navy,
of what language, pray, is Basque a dialect?" (R.A.B.)