Re: Slovanik, my new romlang
| From: | Wesley Parish <wes.parish@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 10:52 |
|---|
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:03, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
> Dear friends!
>
> While working on Megza last week, I found my interest drifting away in a
> slightly different direction. And since we are free people, I decided to
> let it happen. The result are some ideas about a Romance conlang with
> Slavic substratum, that would be a Slavic equivalent of languages like
> Brithenig, Kernu, Germanech, and Judajca. Consider it my contribution to
> those RomLangs that are derived straightly from Vulgar Latin and based on
> the question: what would have happened, if ...
>
> There are a few thoughts I want to share with you/questions I'd like to ask
> you:
>
> The name of the language?
> First, I thought about calling it "Slavonik", but after "Slovanik" seemed
> to sound better in my ears. Still I believe that both names are a bit dull.
> Right now, I am considering to call it either after some Slavonic tribe or
> after the region where it would be spoken. Any thoughts?
>
> Historical plausibility?
> We all know, that the Slavs have never even been near the borders of the
> Roman Empire; their homeland must have been located somewhere on the
> territory of contemporary Poland. So, how could this language have emerged?
> Okay, all languages of this type are based on the idea of "history
> bending". In the case of Brithenig, that's easy: the Romans never left
> Britannia. But in this case? One could argue that, if the Romans were
> strong enough to keep Britannia, they were probably strong enough to move a
> bit further eastward, too. Or, on the other hand, couldn't the Slavs have
> moved a bit to the Southwest, just for my convenience?
>
> Where is it spoken?
> Probably on Polish-Czech territory, let's say in Lower Silesia, Moravia,
> and/or Bohemia. Perhaps a bit further South. Looking at the map of the
> Roman Empire, that would be directly North or East of Pannonia, on the
> other side of the Danube.
>
> Orthography?
> This is my major concern right now. The script of Slovanik will definitely
> be Latin; Cyrillic is out of the question, though it would fit the language
> well. But I have difficulty choosing between "common Slavic" orthography
> (more or less Czech and Croat, with haczeks and the like) and Polish
> orthography. The latter makes me feel much more comfortable, but I'm in
> doubt whether that is really what I want.
Go with the Czech - if what I understand is even remotely correct, the Czechs
were first off the block with a script.
Wesley Parish
>
> Grand Master Plan
> Since all major Celto-Romance conlangs seem to work with a Grand Master
> Plan (GMP), I thought I could not stay behind with my Slavo-Romance
> language. So, here is a first draft:
>
> Vowels
> /a/ [A]
> /e/ when initial [jE]
> when short: dissappears, but causes palatalization of the preceding
> consonant(s)
> when long: [E]
> /i/ when long [i]
> when short /y/ [I]
> /o/ [O]
> when after a stressed syllable: [u]
> /u/ [u]
> when followed by /a/ or /o/: [v]
> when followed by /e/: [j] (= palatalization of preceding
> consonant(s)) when followed by /i/: disappears with palatalization of
> preceding consonant(s)
>
> Diphthongs
> /ae/ [Aj]
> /oe/ [Oj], perhaps [jev]
> /ie/ [jE]
> /au/ [Av]
> /eu/ [jEv]
>
> Consonants:
> Remain as they are, with the following exceptions:
> /p/ before short /e/ for /i/ > [p'] (= [p_j])
> /b/ idem > [b']
> /f/ idem > [f']
> /v/ idem > [v']
> /t/ before short /e/ > [ts]
> before /i/ > [ts']
> /d/ before short /e/ > [dz]
> before /i/ > [dz']
> /s/ before short /e/ or /i/ > [S]
> when medial > [z]
> when final: disappears or [s]
> /c/ before /a/, /o/, /u/ > /k/ [k]
> before long /e/ > [k']
> before short /e/ or /i/ > [tS]
> /g/ before short /e/ or /i/ > [dZ]
> /h/ before /a/, /o/, /u/, long /e/ > /ch/ [x]
> before short /e/ > [j]
> before /i/: disappears
> /qu/ before /a/, /o/, /u/ > [kv]
> before long /e/ or /ae/ > [k']
> before /i/ or short /e/ > [tS]
> /x/ medial > [tS]
> final > [S]
> /r/ when final > [r] or [j]
> /l/ before /a/, /o/, /u/, long /e/ > [L\], [5] (perhaps Polish [w])
> before short /e/ or /i/ > [l']
> /m/ before short /e/ or /i/ > [m']
> /n/ before short /e/ or /i/ > [n']
>
> Combinations:
>
> /tre/ when at the end of a word: [ts']
> /cte/ [ts]
> /cti/ [ts']
> /rr/ when double > [rj] (in the language becomes Polish-based, this
> would become /rz/ [Z]
> /VmpV/ [V~pV]
>
> /VmptV/, /VntV/ and /VnctV/
> when second vowel = /a/, /o/, /u/, long /e/ > [V~tV]
> when second vowel = short /e/ > [V~ts]
> when second vowel = /i/ > [V~ts'i]
>
> Nasalization of the preceding vowel might (like in Russian and other Slavic
> languages, but unlike in Polish) lead to the following changes:
> [a~] [u]
> [e~] [a]
>
> Does all this make sense? Did I forget something? Etc. Comments sollicited.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Jan
>
> =====
> "Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
>
http://uk.my.yahoo.com