Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 > possibility. > > 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.
Ah, ok.
> 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 infeasible? 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). Variant 1: - short/long vowels have collapsed in final syllable, without quality change Variant 2: - short/long vowels have collapsed in final syllable, together with quality change. Variant 3: - short/long vowels have not collapsed at all, but still, acc/abl have merged I like variant 3 most, but you say it is too 'unrealistic', right? So I assume variant 1 is most likely? **Henrik -- Relay 13 is online:


R A Brown <ray@...>