Re: Terkunan: rules for deriving nouns, verbs, adjectives

Hi!

R A Brown writes:
>> 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.
I thought about whether Terkunan could be an auxlang or otherwise
constructed language*there*, but I'm not sure.

>> The diachronical development is retro-fitted and secondary.
>
> That would seem to me to be making life difficult   :)
Definitely.  It is secondary, as I said.  If anyone finds good
explanations, I'm open to suggestions.

>...
>>    - 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*).
Ah!  Of course!

My timeline starts in the first century CE.  Þrjótrunn retains the
u-declension (4th).  So there might be a tendency for other languages
to retain it *there*.  This might be a good way to construct the
retention in Terkunan.

>....
>> 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.
Well, as I said, the historical development is secondary.  You don't
need to comment on it. :-) Of course, any hints are appreciated.  :-)
But you could comment on whether you like the constructed verb forms.
I tried to use analytical structures found in Romance *here*, and I
think it sounds plausible in texts.  But you might want to tell me the
result does not sound plausibly Romance to you at all.

**Henrik