Re: (Brazilian Portuguese and Rhodrese (was French)

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 VL‑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.