Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 >
-- Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."