[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [CONLANG] (Brazilian Portuguese and Rhodrese (was French)



--- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:


Hey there, i was wondering what is Rhodrese i like the look of this
language and was wondering if it was completed or is it being developed?


>
> Edgard escreust:



> 
>  >>> This is so like my conlang Rhodrese were
>  >>>
>  >>> Latin
>  >>>
>  >>> R, -D-, -RR          >    _r_ /4/
>  >>>
>  >>> RR, DR, D'R N'R      >    _rr_ /R/
>  >>>
>  >>> L-, L / V__V, -LL'   >    _l_ /l/
>  >>>
>  >>> L / __(C, #)         >    _o_ /w/, /U/
>  >>>
>  >>> LJ, GL, G'L, -C'L-   >    _gl_ /L/
>  >>>
>  >>> LL, L'N, L'R, T'L, D'L >  _ll_ /r`_l/ (aka /l\`/ aka /4\`/)
>  >>>
>  >>> Thus:
>  >>>
>  >>> ILLO PEDE       >       _el pier_ /pjE4/ pl. _il pir_
>  >
>  >
>  > pedem > pede > pere > pe:r > pier
> 
> pedem > pEdem > pE:de > peEde > piEde > piEre > piEr
> 
>  > pede:s > pere:s > pries? : )
> 
> pede:s >>>> piEdes > piEdis >> piEri > piiri > pi:r > pir
> 
> I.e. Rhodrese has Germanic-style umlaut! :-)
> Actually the fact that all three VLâ?`declensions
> ended up with a plural in -i was probably more
> likely due to analogy than to actual sound change
> of -e:s > -i and -ae > -i, not to mention '-as > -i'
> and '-os > -i'.  The second person present singular
> of verbs is also formed with i-umlaut, which can be
> regular only in the fourth conjugation, and possibly
> in the second conjugation, tho most 2nd conj. verbs
> went over to the fourth.
> 
>  >
>  >
>  >>> ILLO PATRE      >       _el piar_ (Old Rh. _paerr_) pl. 
> _il pier_!
>  >>> LAUDARE >       _lauriar_ /l@w4'ja4
>  >>>
>  >
>  > reminds me of 'laurear' (portuguese) from laurus, lauru:s.
> 
> No doubt from the adjective LAEREUS.
> That would become _leuriar_ in Rh.:
> 
> laureare >> laurja:re >> leyra:re > l2yra:re >> l2yr&:r > 
> l2yr&@r >> ly:re@r >> lyrjar
> 
> The O.Rh. spelling would have been _leuraer_, reflecting
> either the [l2yr&:r] or the [l2yr&@r] stage.
> 
> In LAUDARE there was no VL /j/ or /i/ and so no umlaut;
> the a: > &: >>>>> ja change happened only after umlaut had
> ceased to operate.
> 
>  >
>  >>>
>  >>> ROTUNDU >       _rodond_ /RU'dOnt/
>  >
>  >
>  > how is the 'mundus' reflex? mund or mond?
> 
> _mon_, pl. _men_ (O.Rh. _mond, moend_
> 
>  >>>
>  >>> PETRA   >       _pierre_ /'pjERI/
>  >>> QUADRAGINTA     >       _quarrante_
>  >
>  >
>  > your conlang seems to preserve diphthongs well, as 
> lauriar, I guess auru >
>  > aur?; I can only think of romance languages that changed 
> it to [o] or [ou].
>  > Aur is beautiful, btw... So I thought that if the second 
> declension plural
>  > was -ai in proto-Rhodrese ; ), it would go to -e, mixing 
> singular and
>  > plural... but you got the stems from the accusative, 
> so... forget it ; )
> 
> Actually Rh. preserved only AU, which indeed did
> become [Ou] in O.Rh.  O.Rh. acquired further
> diphthongs, mainly since after the Latin vowel
> length distinction was replaced by quality
> distinctions as described at
> 
> <http://wiki.frath.net/User:Melroch/Vulgar_Latin>
> 
> and where Rhodrese follows the 'Corsican' pattern
> (which in our universe is of doubtful validity)
> there arose new long vowels through lengthening of
> stressed vowels in open syllables, of which in
> Rhodrese all except the high /i:/ and /u:/ (and
> /y:/) were later (after i-umlaut) diphthongized:
> 
> Latin   Rh. VL  Length  Umlaut  Diphth  Old Rh.		Mod Rh.
> ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ----------	-----------
> i:		i		i:		i:		--		_i_			_i_
> e:		e		e:		e:/i:	ei/i:	_ei, i_		_ai, i_
> i(/e(	E		E:		E:/i:	iE/i:	_ie, i_		_ie, i_
> a:/a(	a		&:		&:/E:	&@/iE	_ea, ie_	_ia,ie_
> u(/o(	O		O:		O:/9:	uO/y2	_uo, ue_	_uo, ue_ /2/
> o:		o		o:		o:/2:	ou/2y	_ou, eu_	_au, eu_ /y/
> u		u		u:		u:/y:	--		_u, ui_		_u, eu_ /y/
> 
> There were also some further diphthongs arising
> from consonantal combinations like RUPTUM > ROPTU
>  > rOutU > _rout_, HABITUM > AB'TU > autu > Out
> _out_, MAGIS > mEi _mei_, DIGITUM, DEJ'TU > dEid >
> _deid/deit_. These [ou]/[Ou] and [ei]/[Ei] pairs
> merged quite early -- possibly before umlaut. Add
> to this the diphthongs that arose from
> L-vocalization. AL, OL and U(L merged with AU but
> are still spelled differently _ao_, I:L was
> spelled _io_ in Middle Rh. but merged with /y/ and
> is spelled _eu_ in Mod.Rh.  EL and I(L finally are
> still distinct /Ew/ and spelled _eo_.  This is the
> main reason _au_ and _ao_ are still spelled
> differently: the umlaut of _au_ is _eu_ /y/ but
> the umlaut of _ao_ is _eo_ /Ew/.
> 
>  >>> PONERE HABET    >       _porrat_ /pU'Rat/
>  >
>  >
>  > 'he must put'?
> 
> 's/he will put'  That is the Romance synthetic
> future as CANTARE HABET > CANTARE HAT > _cantar há_
>    > _cantará_ (to exemplify with Portuguese).
> 
> 
>  >
>  >
>  >>>
>  >>> ILLU BELLU      >       _el bel_
>  >>> ILLA STELLA     >       _l'estelle_
>  >>> ILLO MALO       >       _el mao_
>  >>> ILLA MALA       >       _la male_
>  >
>  >
>  > 'mae' is that illegal?
> 
> Unlike Portuguese Rhodrese doesn't lose
> intervocalic L and N, but in some dialects
> L vocalizalization did go further so there
> you will find _maoe_ /'mawI/ and _estele_
> /I'stElI/ instead of the standard forms
> /'malI/ and /I'stEr`I/ (in the Rhodrese
> dialects' heartland south of Lojú).
> 
>  >>>
>  >>> ILLO STAB'LU    >       _ell estabo_
>  >>> ILLI OC'LI      >       _igl egl_
>  >
>  >
>  > hard to say! the singular is... el ogl... de la aquile?
> 
> Yes _el ogl_, the word is OCULUS 'eye'.
> 
>  >>>
>  >>> ILLO FILIOLU    >       _el figláo_ pl. _il figléo_
>  >>> ILLA FIL[j]INA  >       _la figline_ pl. _il figlí_
>  >>> ILLO FILIO      >       _el fegl_ pl. _il figl_ 
> "child(ren)"
>  >>>        (Old Rh. _el figl, il figl_)
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  > Is there an excerpt with the vulgar latin to compare? I 
> like it.
> 
> I should really make one.  I have the Vulgate Xmas gospel
> lying around, which would be a suitable text, or
> the Tower of Babel, if I can find the Vulgate
> version (which I could).
> 
> /BP
> 
> The Stuttgart Vulgate text from
> 
> <http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=1&c=11>
> 
> is below.  I'll try to find time to work on a
> translation into Rhodrese.
> 
> 11.1	erat autem terra labii unius et sermonum eorundem
> 
> 11.1	And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.
> 
> 11.2	cumque proficiscerentur de oriente invenerunt campum in 
> terra Sennaar et habitaverunt in eo
> 
> 11.2	And when they removed from the east, they found a plain 
> in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.
> 
> 11.3	dixitque alter ad proximum suum venite faciamus lateres 
> et coquamus eos igni habueruntque lateres pro saxis et 
> bitumen pro cemento
> 
> 11.3	And each one said to his neighbour: Come let us make 
> brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead 
> of stones, and slime instead of mortar:
> 
> 11.4	et dixerunt venite faciamus nobis civitatem et turrem 
> cuius culmen pertingat ad caelum et celebremus nomen nostrum 
> antequam dividamur in universas terras
> 
> 11.4	And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, 
> the top whereof may reach to heaven; and let us make our 
> name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.
> 
> 11.5	descendit autem Dominus ut videret civitatem et turrem 
> quam aedificabant filii Adam
> 
> 11.5	And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, 
> which the children of Adam were building.
> 
> 11.6	et dixit ecce unus est populus et unum labium omnibus 
> coeperuntque hoc facere nec desistent a cogitationibus suis 
> donec eas opere conpleant
> 
> 11.6	And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one 
> tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they 
> leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.
> 
> 11.7	venite igitur descendamus et confundamus ibi linguam 
> eorum ut non audiat unusquisque vocem proximi sui
> 
> 11.7	Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound 
> their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.
> 
> 11.8	atque ita divisit eos Dominus ex illo loco in universas 
> terras et cessaverunt aedificare civitatem
> 
> 11.8	And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all 
> lands, and they ceased to build the city.
> 
> 11.9	et idcirco vocatum est nomen eius Babel quia ibi 
> confusum est labium universae terrae et inde dispersit eos 
> Dominus super faciem cunctarum regionum
> 
> 11.9	And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, 
> because there the language of the whole earth was 
> confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad 
> upon the face of all countries.
>