Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Blah blah blah natlangs

From:Justin Mansfield <jdm314@...>
Date:Thursday, July 19, 2001, 4:08
--- In conlang@y..., Oskar Gudlaugsson <hr_oskar@H...> wrote:
> Hi all :) (finally back from voyaging through China, and other
mischiefs),
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:37:50 -0500, Justin Mansfield <jdm314@A...>
wrote:
> > > Note also the spurious [k]s in Medieval Latin, where words like > ><nihl> and <mihi> ended up as <nichil> and <michei>. Since
intervocalic
> ><h> may well have represented [?] in Classical times, this could be a
> >case of /?/ > [k[... but in fact it's just as likely this was an
attempt
> >at pronouncing [h]. This case is also special because it involved > >non-native speakers trying to pronounce a dead language. > > I have a countertheory: the orthographic forms <nichil> and <michei> > represent Greek influence; I gather Greeks have long tended to equate
[h]
> with their native /x/, whose Greek script character ("chi") is
rendered by
> Latin <ch>. This would also be supported by the <ei> in <michei> - > orthographic <ei> has long represented /i/ in Greek script (since
Koine, I
> think; Attic Greek <ei> was /e:/, supposedly). So <nichil> and
<michei>
> could be an error originating among native Greek users of Latin - IMHO
:) True, this orthography would be perfect for medieval Greek, though by the time chi was actually being pronounced [x] I don't think Greek speakers were having much influence on Latin. (<ei> > [i:] was definitely early enough though, as it was always transliterated by <i> in loandwords into Latin). I think the spellings in question are too late and too widespread for this to be the origin of that phenomenon. Note also that the <ch> is traditionally pronounced [k] in those words (as universally in Medieval Latin) IVSTINVS
> > Regards, > Óskar