Re: Droppin' D's Revisited

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>
> En réponse à Robert Hailman <robert@...>:
>
> >
> > I've taken a look at it, and it looks really nice. I don't know enough
> > about Latin or the Romance languages to comment on it much, but if I
> > come across something that doesn't seem right I'll tell you about it. I
> > haven't yet.
> >
> > One thing I'd like to see is a chart of the sound changes employed
> > between Latin and Reman, if there is one I must've missed it.
> >
>
> The point is that there is none: I didn't devise Reman by deriving words from
> Latin through sound changes, but merely by looking at Latin, French, Spanish,
> Italian, etc... and try to devise words differently. Also, the grammar was
> devised as such: "Well, I want to have this feature, let's see how we can mangle
> Latin so that it appears" :)))
> Yet I tried to be consistent in my choices, so I think it's not impossible to
> study Reman and find the sound changes that made Latin evolve into it. But the
> job of finding those sound changes has yet to be done, and having only one state
> of the language (the current one) doesn't help. Still it could be interesting...
> if only I could find an only resource about actual Vulgar Latin pronunciation...
That's an interesting approach. Probably how I'd do it too, if I didn't
have the annoying habit of feeling "incomplete" if I don't do everything
the "right" way, whatever I may percieve that to be.

> I'm devising "Roumant" nearly the same way, except that I don't try to go as far
> as Reman. "Roumant" is more "classical" as a Romance lang :) . I also try to be
> more consistent by using what I know about sound changes that made Latin evolve
> into the different Romance langs.
Concistency can be good, yes. I look forward to hearing more about
Roumant too. It'd be interesting to compare the same text translated
into Reman & Roumant, see whats the same and whats different.

--
Robert