Re: Slovanik, Enamyn, and Slavic slaves

On Friday 02 August 2002 02:18, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
> It is particularly difficult to distinguish here between languages and
> dialects. For some reason all versions of Greek, both ancient and modern,
> have always been known simply as "Greek". The only two possible sister
> languages I can think of are Tsakonian and Pontic Greek.
> A possible reason could be that the Greek language has almost completely
> been wiped off the globe except for Greece. A pity, because Koine could
> have been the ancestor language of a lot of offshoots in the same way
> Vulgar Latin generated the Romance languages.
> It's a pity that Ray is not around; he could have told us a lot of
> interesting stuff on the subject.
        Maybe one of these days I'll try a language based on Greek. If Latin ->
Romance, would Greek -> Hellenic? Or is there another term that would be
better suited for describing such a language?
        *Note to self* Pester Ray when he gets back...

> As a matter of fact, Greek provides a wonderful playground for conlangers.
> Especially since so many people know the language. But somehow it doesn't
> work like that. Perhaps because it just doesn't feel right?
        Perhaps it's because there is a lack of inspiration. For example, it's
comparatively easy to see what directions a con-Romance language could take,
since there are so many examples. Plus, what would be the substratum? There's
not much known about the languages of Asia Minor, although it would
definitely be interesting if there was a Semitic-Hellenic conlang. I have my
doubts about a Slavic-Hellenic conlang, since the Slavs weren't in
present-day Yugoslavia for long before the Turks started marching in.
        What about the Bulgars? When did they switch from a Turkic language to Old
Slavonic? And when did they move into Bulgaria? Perhaps there could have been
a group that picked up Greek, instead...

> > Of course, if we want to reduce things to the absurd, we could call
> > Russia "Roman" since Moscow is the Third Rome. Or at least it was, until
> > Stalin decided to tear down most of the nice old buildings and build his
> > concrete monstrosities. Thank goodness he disliked Leningrad and never
> > bestowed his architectual "vision" upon the old city. The Soviet-block
> > apartments are bad enough as it is. But I digress...
>
> Right! Ever been to Bucharest, once known as the "Paris of the East"?
        Once known is right. I was there for a day and found it very depressing. To
what extent was Ceausescu responsible? I know that to create the boulevard in
front of the "People's Palace" all of the old historic buildings were torn
down, the street widened, and wretchedly ugly concrete buildings were thrown
up to line the street.
        A little googling turned up an interesting page on the People's Palace:
http://home.xnet.com/~jkelley/BucharestBugle.fldr/BuchBugle19-20.html. Second
largest building in the world, (only the Pentagon is bigger), its
construction absorbed Romania's GNP from 1982-88, a fitting monument to
Romania's second "Dracula."
        :Peter

Reply