Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> R A Brown writes:
[snip]
>>Yes - as you wish to reduce the verbal apparatus to a simplicity found
>>neither in Latin nor the Romance languages (excepting, of course,
>>romance based creoles), it's difficult to comment other than to say
>>that here, in contrast to the conservatism of non-palatalization and
>>the apparent retaining of the 4th & 5th declensions, the verbs show
>>very radical reduction of verb forms. It will be interesting to see
>>the diachronic development here.
[snip]
> Yeah. My goal of a plausibly Romance diachronical fauxlang that I
> like is a bit hard to explain. :-)
>
> I'll try:
>
> Defining exactly how Terkunan developed historically is not my primary
> goal, it just came in handy that I had an alternate universe so I
> placed Terkunan there.
Yes, putting TAKE in the WHAT timeline suited my purpose. But *there* it
is an auxlang consciously fashioned by one Josephos Peanou. There is no
diachronic development. It is not an auxlang fashioned from whatever
Hellenic languages developed diachronically in WHAT from ancient Greek.
It is fashioned by JP directly from ancient Greek.
> The diachronical development is retro-fitted and secondary.
That would seem to me to be making life difficult :)
>
> Primary design goals are:
>
> - To have a Grand Master Plan that produces a well-sounding
> language (some languages I have in mind are mentioned on the
> page). The GMP guarantees some consistency, which I value
> high. It seems like an improvement over Da Mätz se Basa.
OK - I have no problem with a GMP.
> - Vulgar Latin as a basis, so that the result looks plausibly
> Romance. At first and maybe second sight, Terkunan should be a
> normal Romance language. (This goal means that the 4th
> declension thing above might indeed be a problem.)
This is fine if one wants to deign a Romancelang - indeed, one must
surely start from Vulgar Latin (tho I guess one could start with the
Vulgar Latin of an alternate timeline/universe and not with VL as it was
*here*).
> - Isolating morphology. For plausibly sounding verb forms,
> I retain a few irregular forms.
As you can see from TAKE I have no problem with a language having
isolating morphology :)
> Following these goals, some structures might need some thinking to be
> retro-fitted to historical development...
Precisely - that's what I was asking about. The verbs are so radically
reduced that I find I cannot make any useful comment without knowing how
these reduced forms were supposed to have developed from VL.
> Afrikaans also exists, it also reduced morphology radically. So why
> not a Romance lang?
No reason at all. In fact the Romance based creoles have done exactly
that. But as far as Afrikaans is concerned, the diachronic development
is documented and well known.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitudinem.