Re: Saprutum website update

Keith wrote:
(woe, i couldn't figure out of your messages whether i should write "katav"
or "katva" :-)

> > Fascinating! A rare occasion of a Semitic conlang!
>
> I'm surprised they're not more popular, given the high profile of this
> language group.
Ppl are strange, y'see... At least I've got one and a half Semitic
embryoconlangs: a Semitic CLP-04 (yet unnamed) - at the stage of idea, and
Rumiya (CLP-01) - an Ibero-Romance language with strong Arabic cultural
influence (like we find in Farsi) - suspended.

> Wasn't there an Arabic based conlang used in the Dune
> trilogy? I seem to remember seeing an appendix about it years ago.
Unfortunately, I've never seen the appendix. It may have Arabic as its
primary source, but some glosses are traps indeed, like "bene gesserit" has
nothing to do with Hebrew: it's from Latin, meaning "she had done well"...

> > Unfortunately, I cannot guess the adstratum origin.
>
> Just about every (generally unknown) early mediterranean/ Iberian lang.
> The speakers of Saprutum were traders who established bases across the
> mediterranean during the bronze age, and then more or less lost touch
> with the middle east when the early Greeks arrived and stirred
> everything up.
OIC. Then it may manifest certain Akkadian traits, i suppose?

> By the time the Phoenicians/ Carthaginians got their act
> together, the Saprutum speakers were all up the altlantic seaboard of
> Iberia and probably beyond. Which was where the classical language was
> finally codified, probably a reaction to the large number of refugees
> from the Punic wars and subsequent Roman genocide that had joined the
> Saprutum community speaking their own rather different semitic lang.
Thus the lang was heavily influenced by Carthaginians, wasn't it? I am not
sure i can see this kind of influence, at least on phonology...

> (OK, where _did_ all the Carthaginians go, even the thorough Romans
> can't have killed them all?)
They were assimilated. Assimilation kills more nations than wars.

> > Can you tell us a few more words about this project here or in a closer
> > company of West Asian Conalngs Workshop
>
> Please subscribe me, my e-mail is [...]
Done!

> > In particular, I'm interested in the origin of its regularity (which
always
> > makes me suspicious) and the vocabulary:
>
> At present the vocab is fairly provisional "common semitic" with
> Phoenician influence (which means that if all else fails I use mangled
> Hebrew roots).
I've noticed it :-))
Do you use Arabic or Ethio-Semitic langs (e.g. Amharic) as sources?

> My main effort so far has been to sort out the basic
> morphology and syntax, then I need to straighten out the historical
> phonology, then do the vocabulary properly. But obviously you have to
> start somewhere.
OIC. The stuff presented is meant to be quite raw... Then i would say:
that's a good start!

> Saprutum developed as a trade language, and as a link between scattered
> settlements, so the "official" common form was probably always a bit
> artificial and over-regular, compared to all the various local
> varieties. Nevertheless it was seen to be an essential tool for the
> unity of their culture, and was carefully cultivated over a long period
> of time.
Clear. But indeed, reduction of different kinds of nouns to segolate models
seems to me a bit improbable. I also highly doubt about the fate of cases...
And why 1sn and 1pl merged?

> _lixnum_ : tongue, the prime articulator, also useful for licking
> stamps;
And "language" in Hebrew (lâshôn) and Akkadian (lisanum).

> _dabrum_ : word; collective _dabrutum_ : words, speech;
>    derived abstract noun _dabratum_ : spoken language, verbiage
Hehe, Arabic |dubr| means "back", "buttock"...

> _saprum_ : report, account, message, annal etc.;
>    collective _saprutum_ : language, discourse;
>    derived abstract noun _sapratum_ : science, history, etc.
I understand the flow of your mind. Thus, Modern Hebrew uses |sifrut| for
literature, not for language.

> The concept of "language" is nearer to the modern idea of _information_
> or to Greek _logos_ than to _speech_. "Tongue" might be used
> figuratively to mean "speech", but not "language" in this more abstract
> sense.
What the hell is this Greek idea? Why should they care about Greeks? Down
with Yavan ha-malkut ha-r'sha3a!

> Nentatam,
>
> Keith Mylchreest
With much respects,
Yitzik
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'm not always as poisonous as this"

Replies