[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote: > > 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 > >> > Granadeño -- 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. Your suggestions are good (and enough for a whole new Romlang), but I'd rather not have full scale mutation, since I already have another Romlang that does that. What I'm now considering is final x > i in monosyllables; this takes care of the accusative. For the dative, I'm thinking of applying the - bis from nobis and vobis to the 3rd person by analogy. This would also be used for the definite article. What do you think? Jeff > -- > > /BP 8^) > -- > Benct Philip Jonsson > mailto:melrochX@... (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.) >