Re: Question about Romlangs/CeltiConlangs

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 21:53:46 +0100
=?iso-8859-1?q?Jan=20van=20Steenbergen?= <ijzeren_jan@...>
writes:
> Are your languages really 100 % a posteriori, or did you introduce a
> priori elements (words, grammar) as well? Just curious.
> Padraic? Andrew? Christophe? Steg? Whomever I didn’t mention here?
> Regards,
> Jan
-

Well, i haven't really worked on Judajca (Judean Romance) that much, but
i have added a-priori elements into the soundshifts that occur.  The
variety of Vulgar Latin that was influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic to form
Judajca already had a few sound changes that occured before the Semitic
influence began, for instance the shift of syllable-final /r/ and /l/ to
/l/ and /w/, respectively, as well as a tendency to voice intervocalic
/s/ (which then, under influence from the NW Semitic /t/ > [s]
softeneing, shifts to /S/) and devoice non-intervocalic /w/ (/w/ and /W/
then later shift to /v/ and /f/).  Also an erosion of the ends of words
was involved, including the |-is| at the end of genetives, as well as the
final vowels of verb infinitives.
Most of the a-posteriori changes are attempts to fit a Romance language
into a Hebrew/Aramaic phonological system, as well as grammatical changes
(like the development of the nom. and gen. cases into non-construct and
construct) to make it work more like the Semitic adstrate influence.


-Stephen (Steg)
 "tii raflep suddari.hlao nga'amsh;
  akh ikh raflep uzoi-tzat, i raflep-a tza'aurdzaasht-a uz,
  raflep-a ngausgaur sudtub."
     ~ song of the BaMbuti in troubled times (Rokbeigalmki version)

Reply