Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Terkunan revision (adding a lot of Rhodrese)

From:Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
Date:Monday, October 15, 2007, 23:57

Benct Philip Jonsson writes:
>... > Sure, although IMHO to have _-z/-s_ in some forms and not > in others, even if the ones who have them are monosyllabic > determiners, feels strange to me. The reasonable > explanation for the loss, *especially in an Iberian > context* would be a rule > > s > 0 / _#
No, there is no such rule in Terkunan. The plural endings dropped for some other reason.
> and so it should apply everywhere. The one plural form I'd > expect to survive would be _li_ < ILLÍ, since there the > plural marker happened to be stressed, and of course in the > pronouns, which were suppletive. So you'd get
Well, I really don't like the vocalic plurals, I want the -s. (The usual accusative plural story.)
> >| mi ~ miz > >| no ~ noz > >| tu ~ tuz > >| vo ~ voz > >| tor ~ torz > > What's _tor_? _otro_?
< 'tua horda'. A 'representative' 2nd person pronoun used when talking to representatives of companies on the phone. You can then insult the company without upsetting the person on the phone personally.
>... > >| idda _dd_ = /d\`/ > >| iddu > >| pl. iddi > > > > So there would be your Romance natlang that does it. > > Thanks! However assuming an _-e_ > _-i_ merger before i- > umlaut would cause too much i-umlaut, e.g. in third > declension singulars!, so i-umlauted plurals of first > declension nouns will probably be analogic in Rhodrese. > However Rhodrese has a /-@/ > /-I/ change later, so that > Latin -A will show up as /-I/! I saw somewhere that > _dimanche_ was "_dimanchi_" in Lyonese patois and had to > seize on it, and then a wholesale reduction of unstressed > vowels to /@ I U/ lay near. It will not be reflected in > spelling however! I really will have to play around with > your schcompile to determine the exact sound changes and > their order.
I was thinking of reducing the unstressed syllables, too, but decided against, because I was beginning to implement *all* features I found interesting in Italian dialects, and it was just too much. I like your /@ I U/ (or is that /a i u/ ~ [@ I U]?), and I don't know how Sicilian is actually pronounced -- seems resonable. In Westgreenlandic, short vowels do much the same, IIRC (additionally, they adjust a bit around uvulars), because with only three vowels around, there is a lot of freedom for a vowel anyway. BTW, some variants seem to have reduced many stressed syllables to /a i u/, too, and even did something I experimented with to unstressed syllables: spreading /a/ a bit in unstressed syllables so that VL /E/ and /O/ > /a/. Well -- there are the following words in Sicilian: alèttrica 'electrical' rapprisenta 'he/she/it represents' (I think) raccumannamu 'we recommend' asempiu 'example' :-) Wikipedia is nice -- I has a lot of Sicilian and Sardinian texts... :-)
>... > That's the way SUUS worked in Latin, but *all* Romance > natlangs have changed it to mean 'his/her' In fact that > change was fully completed in Late Latin texts, so the > chance that a Romance language avoided it is slim -- at > least in OTL.
Well, Terkunan's a fauxlang. It is meant to be a romlang that is a good mixture of typical and untypical, and most of all, pleasing to me. I don't want to stick as much to historical feasibility as with Þrjótrunn. I deliberately chose to keep the Latin version. We'll see whether the current version is final.
>... > > *_futus_ is the basis for that participle in Þrjótrunn > > and in Terkunan. An analogical reconstruction of > > _futurus_, of course. > > Well, _bhûta-_ does exist in Sanskrit, so a *FUTUS **may** > have survived in your ATL.
Yeah, I always found this was a very feasible keep. :-)
>... > What happens to FIERI?
Currently gone.
>... > > I am currently also considering dropping the verb's -a > > ending. Another step towards French... We'll see. It would > > mean that nouns and verbs are indistinguishable on the > > phonology level, but then, before vowels, this was always > > the case anyway, and my word class markers are more > > irregular than regular, and thus a but half-hearted. This > > would mean to drop the concept of marked word classes > > completely. > > Do *all* verbs, and not only those of the first conjugation > have this -a ending? If so it should probably go! :-)
Well, I tried, but it wasn't satisfactory. I like the -a stuff I currently use. It did change the rules about when it drops, however, and it drops much more often.
>... > | Indef. un kan ni kan > | Def. le kan li kan > > Removes the 'Sohlobism' of the unmarked form being the > indefinite plural, although I think you can in practice get > that effect in some OTL creoles too.
I would not want this because -e is quite close to -i and n- sounds very similar to l-. I really like my -s. :-) I currently have: sg. pl. indef. un nus def. le les **Henrik