Re: Translation: Trolls and their Management

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Morgan Palaeo Associates wrote:

> Tristan McLeay wrote:
>
> > (UE)most ne fødef Trållen.
> > [JQm'p_haiS       SE:]     (Accent is tonal.)
> >
> > Where (UE) is a capital UE ligature, ø is o-slash, å is a-ring.
>
> I must be missing something. How on earth do you get from that
> spelling to that pronunciation?
>
> Based on your transcription of Old Føtisk:
>
> > (UE) most ne fødef Trållen.
> > /y:  most n@ f2d@f trQll@n/
(Should've been /f2:d@f/, though the length is implied by the open
syllable.)

> you'd need sound changes along these, often VERY improbable lines:
Very improbable, yes. But still.

> /y:/  ->  [JQ]   -- ????
> /m/   ->  [mp_h]
> /o/   ->  [ai]
> /st/  ->  [S]
Actually (not quite like this, but it's close enough),
 y: most n@ f2:d@f
 wi most n@ xwor@x
 wi mOst n@ xwo@x
 w@ mOst n@ hwex (o@ > o: > wo > we like Spanish)
 w@ mQ:tn@'p\eix
 wmQ:nt'p\eiC
 m_wQ:m'pp\aiS
 m_wQ:m'p_haiS

The [J] was a mistake; I'd turned y: > ji in my head. Maybe I should add
some maggellity to the mix and keep it :)

> (No pronunciation at all given for "ne fødef"]   ---- ????
Nah. _(UE)_ meant 'you' and _most_ 'must'; they eventually fuse with the
verb and are limited to the [m_wQ:] bit. Or the [JO:] bit.

> /tr/  -> [S]
Yup! (Via an early change in the quality of r, predating the rhotification
of intervocalic d.)

> /Qll/ -> [E:]    -- ????
 /Qll/ > [Ql] > Qu > Au > au > &u > &@ > E:
(cf. Common Germanic au > MnE E:, except thoroughly sped up; Modern
English has even gone a step further and turned /E:/ into /i:/.)

> /@n/  -> (gone)
Yeah. /@n/ > [@] > 0 is reasonably common. Not to mention that it wasn't
as thoroughly gramaticalised in OF as it could've been (being optional
even then).

> You say on the website that: "The phonetic values for Modern Føtisk
> are not discussed here. Many mergers and separations have happened
> from the list for Old Føtisk", but *this* much? Initial [J] appearing
> out of nowhere? Closed front vowel becoming open back? Large chunks of
> graphemes and even words gone silent? Makes me yearn for the
> simplicity, logic and regularity of Maggel.
Not quite that bad. But it is meant to be my answer to Maggel :)

--
Tristan

Reply