Re: constructed romance languages

Eric Writes:
<<
> I'm working on a project tenatively called Ierma^nsc (<GERMANICE)
It looks very interesting, but I had a few comments. Hope you don't
mind :) First, I really the name Iermansc, but it seems that the
outcome of Germanice would be *Iermanz. Perhaps Iermansc is derived
instead from *Germaniscu/*Germanescu? Also, you said that c and g
became palatalized before a, but they become /x/ and /G/. I don't
think those would come from palatalization.>>

Ah.  Alright, well in the intermediate language between Latin and Iermans=
c
(Old Iermansc?), the term is "Iermanice" /jErmOnitSe/, there is a rule i =
did
not mention, that when /tS/ and /dZ/ become final through apocope, they b=
ecome
/S/.  I *think* a similar process applied in Surselvan (i.e. "Romantsc" <
ROMANICE).  Incedentally, the original name was Alemansc, which has since=
 then
been reduced to dialect status.

Regarding /x/ and /G/, there was also an intermediate stage /C/ and /J/. =
 I
don't know if thats the proper ASCII, but the sounds are the palatalized =
stops
which in IPA look like c and dotless j.  I took a little liberty in assum=
ing
that these might sound like fricatives in the ears of Germanic types, sin=
ce
the language took a few hundred years to settle in (c.f. that length of t=
ime:
Latin in Gaul).

Sorry I failed to include a bunch of minor phonological things, as well a=
s
stuff about stress, verbs, etc...I just wanted to present some of the mai=
n
concepts (and the thing you saw was a rough, rough draft...).

I sincerely appreciate the feedback, though!

Paz n=F6vesc!
Dale