[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Here I thought I'd plunch headlong into MGR, and then a lot of obstructions came up in Real Life. Anyway I've written some relevant stuff at <blog.melroch.se>. We really ought to set up a place to discuss MGR, unless you all think that since it all hinges about making room for more Romance languages here is the right place. Peter Collier skrev: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benct Philip Jonsson" > <bpj@hidden.email> To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com> Sent: > Monday, January 14, 2008 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [romconlang] > Re: Intervocalic lenition in Romance and MGR > > >> ... But *if* Germany up to the Albis came into the Empire >> then NW Germany was surely also Latinized, no? > > Undoubtedly at some point, and for a while. Romance does > not survive everywhere the Romans have been though, at > least not *here* ! > > As cumulative historical changes quickly get out of hand, > I've been working to a guideline of changing the timeline > only where necessary to explain the alternate language, > otherwise it's easy to get sidetracked into areas that get > further and further from predictability. On that basis, > since I've only been dealing with the High German areas > the rest has been left as is. As a 'back story' to expalin > that my initial thinking (and that's all there's ever > been) behind a Franconian/Saxon north is that is the > Romans would only have been in NW Germany for a few > hundred years, and conceivably the area could easily have > 're-germanised' following the collapse of the Empire. That > also leaves a door open for the Franks, if I wanted them > (most of the last 1500 years of West European history > depends on them after all). But nothing is set in stone, > of course, as the idea of a Romano-Low Saxon and possibly > eventually even English has always been there. I've been > too busy in the Swabian Alps, trying to hammer square > Roman pegs into round German holes, linguistically > speaking to deal with it. > >> That is if you like the idea of a collaborative ATL. >> Otherwise we can go our own races and keep comparing! :-) > > Collaboration is good, it often achieves more than the sum > of its parts. If you get too wacky, I'll just have a > secret 'AATL' tucked under the desk here for my own > personal pleasure. > >>> And once that is laid out, all you need to do is follow>>> the phonological history of English to extrapolate a Romano-
>>> German version from there. The Great Vowel Shift really >>> could be interesting! >> *I* would predictably find Old Englich /&NglItS/ < >> Englichen < Englican < ANGLICANUM most interesting. The >> GVS wouldn't show up in spelling anyway! :-( > > ... >> See <http://www.melroch.se/mgr/> > > Nice map! > >> Perhaps Germania Superior/Inferior would perhaps be >> Augusta/Agrippinensis in MGR, if their capitals are Aug. >> Treverorum and Col. Agrippinensis respectively, since >> their OTL names don't make sense with Alisonensis and >> Hercynia around. > > I have, again only pencilled, G.INF. and G. SUP as a > single G. CISRHENANIA province, with G. TRANSRHENANIA > between there and the Elbe. In the very early days I was > looking at dialects in the Rhine area before later > changing my mind and moving south. The province gave me > the language name of Rienench(e) though which I like a > whole lot better than (Austro-)Bavarian! I have the south- > eastern boundary along the Sudeten mountains for two > reasons - it's been a natural border since at least the > earliest middle ages (no matter how old the map one can > always make out Bohemia), and secondly, it keeps history > closer to OTL. I can well imagine whoever lived in the > future Czech lands at that time might have been foederati > though.. > > > Pete