Re: Question about Neo-Dalmatian

Bah. I forgot about that numbers page...

> How many conlangs called "Neo-Dalmatian" are there? Most of us probably know
> Ferko's language on http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6502/; if I'm not
> mistaken, it's called "Neo-Dalmatian" or "Dalmatesku". Its numerals are the
> following:
> unu/una, du/dua, trai, katru, czencza, szake, szapte, optu, nua, xiacze
This is correct. This is the current and only existing Neo-Dalmatian
language. However the website you show is the last remnants of the "old"
Neo-Dalmatian. The current one is at http://www.geocities.com/dalmatesku/

>
> However, on Mark Rosenfelder's numbers page I found a completely different set
> of Neo-Dalmatian numbers. As the source of this language he mentions a certain
> Julius K. Liptak and Laszlo Kovacs:
> oin, doi, tra, kátru, káinku, si, shat, yoit, nóiva, dik
So is this, or shall I say, so *was* this. Everything to do with this
language has been destroyed, or so I thought. Julius Liptak was a pen name
of mine; Laci Kovacs was a friend of mine whose computer I was using at
the time.

>
> Both sets are so different from each other that I doubt whether they can be two
> stages of the same language. Do I have to understand that there are indeed two
> conlangs of exactly the same name? And if so, does anyone know something about
> the other Neo-Dalmatian? I have been unable to find anything else about it on
> the net.
The geocities link you mentioned (/parhtenon/6502) is the only thing
you'll find on the old one anymore besides the numbers.

>
> BTW The "real" Dalmatian numbers, according to Mark Rosenfelder:
> join, doi, tra, kwatro, chenk, si, sapto, guapto, nu, dik.
>
> Speaking about Neo-Dalmatian: in how far is this a constructed language and in
> how far is it a reconstructed language? Ferko?
>
The old one was a failed reconstruction, failed because of insuffiecient
data, and I abandoned it. A few years later I began the new one, as a
(more) purely constructed language.

---ferko

Replies