Re: [romconlang] Romlang splitting off ~0-100 CE
|From:||Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>|
|Date:||Friday, March 24, 2006, 14:35|
R A Brown <ray@...> writes:
> course, in some pronouns). At what stage the spoken Latin of 1st cent
> CE was in this process, I am not sure. But I would think the 4 cases
> of German plus a liberal use of prepositions would be plausible
> As for the ablative plural - when the ablative & acc. singular fell
> preposition + noun, the question about the ablative plural becomes a
> "non-question". In effect, the ablative had disappeared.
This is all very interesting! :-)
> > And can I
> > not deduce that final -m at least lengthened the preceding vowel?
> No, you can't.
> Indeed, it is a rule of Latin that the vowel before final -m (and
> -t, -nt) was always shortened. The only consistent way of explaining
> the behavior of final -Vm in classical verse is that the short vowel
> was nasalized, being elided before another vowel but giving rise to
> a non-phonemic homorganic nasal consonant before the next consonant.
That's interesting again.
> > Of course, common speech is not poetry, but lengthening why also
> > explain collapse of acc. and abl.. Otherwise (no lengthening by
> > -m), acc. would have a short vowel while abl. usually would have
> > a long vowel.
> No - the unstressed, word final vowels seem to have lost quantitative
> distinctions before this became general elsewhere.
And did this happen together with a quality change when it happened
earlier? (Sardinian 2nd decl. nouns end in _u_, not _o_, indicating
no quality shift.)
> In 1st decl. the two cases would just be -a; in the second the [U]
> of the acc. & [o] of the abl. were practically the same in final,
> unstressed position. The ablative -e in the 3rd decl. was short in
> anyway, so again the acc. & abl. would be homophonous.
Yes for 3rd decl. I see this immediately. Although for the 2nd
decl. this assumes the qualitative vowel system already, right?
Otherwise we'd get acc. in -[u] vs. abl. in -[o]. This is still close
enough for a merger, especially if unstressed.
I don't doubt the two cases were collapsed by 1st cent. CE, but I'd
like to understand how this happened (if that is known). A final -[u]
vs. final -[o] is still a very interesting thought very hard to resist
to use for North Germanic sound shifts. E.g. take _bellum_ [belu]
vs. _bello_ [belo]. We'd get _bjöll_ vs. _bell_. I find that
very tempting. %-)
Further, for interesting sound changes I had hoped to have a length
distinction in the final vowels. Now you say that that is also
I see three variants. In both, I'd assume that the qualitative vowel
system happened after the split-off of my conlang. From your
explanations, I also assume that acc/abl. have merged, and final -m
has disappeared without traces (i.e., no compensatory lengthening).
- short/long vowels have collapsed in final syllable, without
- short/long vowels have collapsed in final syllable, together
with quality change.
- short/long vowels have not collapsed at all, but still, acc/abl
I like variant 3 most, but you say it is too 'unrealistic', right?
So I assume variant 1 is most likely?
Relay 13 is online: