Re: [romconlang] Romlang splitting off ~0-100 CE

Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> theiling@absint.com skrev:
>
>> Secondly, and more specifically, what would be the status of final -m
>> at that time, particularly at the northern border of the Roman Empire?
>> Would it be feasible for a conlang to assume certain phonological
>> effects (e.g. lengthening as a side effect of nasalisation) of final
>> -m?  Or has -m disappeared completely already without any trace?
>
>
> It would probably be gone already by then.  Not even the Classical
> poets pronounced it, apparently.
Oh certainly - this is clear from graffiti. The only exception are
monosyllabic words where, we find, the final nasal survives into the
Romancelangs, e.g. Fr. rien (<-- rem), Sp.quien (<-- quem).

But there will other problems to decide if one is having a splitting off
as early as the 1st century BC. In particular, was the older
quantitative distinction of vowel length still maintained in the spoken
language, or was it already giving way to the qualitative distinctions
of later Vulgar Latin (from which the Romance langs derive)?

How far had the case system broken down by this time? The accusative &
ablatives had probably fallen together in popular speech. But were
genitives & datives still holding on or had they already giving way to
periphrastic forms with 'de' and 'a(d)'? The use of these (and other
periphrases) is attested as early as Plautus

Graffiti at Pompeii would be helpful as it got preserved in the 1st century.

>> Further, what would be the status of the adverb?  When did the 'mente'
>> forms emerge and be used exclusively colloquially to replace the
>> '-iter' morpheme?
>
>
> No idea.
In any case, -iter is not universal in the Classical language. It is
used only in deriving adverbs from 3rd decl. adjectives - and then not
always. The 1st & 2nd decl. adjectives use -e to form adverbs. And the
acc. or abl. neuter of the adj.. was often used adverbially. I suspect
the spoken language was working towards greater regularization.

But, like Philip, I do not know how much, if at all, the 'mente'
periphrasis was being used in the 1st cent. IIRC there were other nouns
besides 'mens' used in this sort of way; after all _simili modo_ occurs
in the Classical language. I suspect in the 1st cent. there were several
methods being used and that the regular use of 'mente' was not fully
established.

As for what you could read, I don't know off hand. There is very little
indication from the Classical Latin of that period. But, yes, Sardinian
is very conservative and would serve as a better model than the more
well-known Romancelangs which, of course, derive from the VL of the
later Western Empire.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Replies