Re: Thagojian to split

Why is Thagojian going to split? Is it something related to the
language development process, to the intrinsic properties of the
language, to some interesting element you have seen in other
languages, or because of an internal and subjective feeling?
What are the reasons that make conlangers in general split a language
into two or more? This would be interesting to know.

Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues

On 11/30/06, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:
> Thagojian is going to split.
>
> One branch is going to be a PIE language that grows up among Turkic
> neighbors. I'm preparing to start learning more about Altaic, Uralic,
> Georgian, Armenian, Arabic, Pashto and Russian (and probably OCS). I
> foresee a three-way vowel harmony (front vs round vs open) and a
> decently-sized set of consonants. Maybe some consonant harmony, too...
>
> The other branch is going to remain what the original project was: a
> PIE language that drifted down into Mesopotamia, up the rivers, and
> into the Levant, picking up traces of Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaic,
> Greek, Hebrew, Arabic and Coptic (and plausibly Ancient Egyptian,
> Persian, Punic and Latin, too). I'm getting sick and tired of trying
> to shoehorn vowel harmony and a decent PIEoid inflectional structure
> into something that essentially is swamped by Semitic languages (and
> the horrors of Sumerian). I will let nature run its course far less
> impeded than I had been.
>
> Both projects are going to require a decent amount of study and
> research, which is one my main reasons for indulging in the secret
> vice anyway, so yaye. I plan to start by burying myself in my ARTANES
> Sumerian tutorial (so far I'm 0 for 2 trying to get past the first
> couple of chapters -- wish me luck!), and picking up a copy of _The
> Turkic Languages_ from Routlegde. Maybe I can get 'er indoors to
> consider getting me a copy for $WINTERHOLIDAY (or %WinterHoliday% if
> you're that way inclined).
>
> I will also need a new name for one or both of the projects.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> PS: Sorry for any wacky line-wrapping. 'Tis the fault of this webmail
> interfac
> e.
>

Replies