195222Re: On Creating Altlangs
- Feb 19, 2013I see people creating altlangs/bogolangs between (somewhat) closely related
families. Usually Indo-european ones.
Does anyone here know of an alt/bogolang based on non-related families, or
maybe somewhat related families if you consider the controversial
macro-families of Nostratic or Dené-Caucasian? Something like a Uralic
language that looks like Indo-European? Or an Indo-European language that
looks like Eskimo-Aleut?
Furthermore, has anyone seen an alt/bogolang based on completely
non-related families, like a Mapudungun language that looks like Bantu or
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:13 PM, James Kane <kanejam@...> wrote:
> Romanian is almost a real life altlang and IMO quite a cool language. It
> doesn't have an identical phonology to the surrounding Balkan or Slavic
> languages, nor did it go through the same sound changes but it is obviously
> influenced by them and different enough from the other Romance languages
> (while still obviously Romance) without resembling greatly any other
> On 20/02/2013, at 5:11 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
> > Hallo conlangers!
> > On Tuesday 19 February 2013 09:19:46 R A Brown wrote:
> >> On 18/02/2013 20:43, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> >>> Hallo conlangers!
> >>> On Monday 18 February 2013 14:58:54 R A Brown wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> My understanding is that Brithenig did start out as an
> >>>> altlang: What would modern British Romance be like if
> >>>> spoken Latin had survived the withdrawal of the
> >>>> legions? But IMO it did lean too far in the bogolang
> >>>> direction. It certainly gives that appearance.
> >>> Yes. Brithenig is not really a bogolang, but it gets
> >>> close, and is guilty of treading loose a wave of
> >>> bogolangs.
> >> I agree on both points.
> > Good.
> >> [snip]
> >>>> Indeed - and also whether it is a genuine altlang, i.e.
> >>>> the way a language might plausibly have developed if
> >>>> history had been different, or whether it is a
> >>>> bogolang, i.e. early Germanic with the sound changes of
> >>>> a Slavonic group.
> >>> Yes. That is a difference. Of course, we cannot say
> >>> that a bogolang was *impossible* - it is just very
> >>> unlikely,
> >> I cannot think of any actual examples among natlangs. The
> >> Slav influence on Romanian is obvious, and French acquired
> >> the front rounded vowels of neighboring Germanic, but
> >> neither are bogolangs.
> > Indeed not. French, for instance, does not have the kind of umlaut
> > process German has - it arrived at its front rounded vowels in a
> > completely different way.
> > Another example are the various regional dialects of diaspora
> > languages such as Yiddish or Romani. They never are bogolangs;
> > they simply did not ape the sound changes of the relevant host
> > country's language.
> >> Creole are often cited as taking one
> >> language and applying the phonology of another, but the
> >> results certainly do not resemble bogolangs.
> > That characterization of creoles indeed flies only so far, and
> > creoles do not resemble bogolangs in any meaningful way.
> >> ============================================================
> >> On 18/02/2013 20:58, And Rosta wrote:
> >> [British Romance]
> >>> My first guess, made from a position of near-ignorance on
> >>> my part, is that it would be rather like northern French.
> >>> If that guess is along the right lines, then a further
> >>> question would be in what ways it might be expected to
> >>> differ from northern French.
> >> Certainly the way Vulgar Latin developed in northern Gaul
> >> would probably not be so different. My main criticism of
> >> Brithenig is that it does not IMO make sufficient allowance
> >> for influence from sister Romancelangs.
> > And I concur with this criticism.
> >> The various
> >> Romancelangs of western Europe were always in contact and
> >> exercising some influence on one another. It's all very
> >> well having the Vulgar Latin of Dacia developing in
> >> isolation, but I don't think having the Vulgar Latin of
> >> Britain behaving similarly is likely.
> > Yes. This is a great difference between British Celtic and a
> > hypothetical British Romance. British Celtic had no dialect
> > continuum on the continent to connect with after about 400 AD,
> > as Continental Celtic was extinct. British Romance would
> > interact with Gallo-Romance, as the sea connects as much as it
> > separates. It would be part of the Western Romance dialect
> > continuum.
> >> As for differences between a British Romance & norther
> >> Francien? Probably front rounded vowels would not have
> >> maintained themselves. The continental [ø] and [œ] had
> >> already given way to unrounded sounds in Old English, and
> >> the same happened later with Anglo-Norman borrowings, cf.
> >> bœef ~ beef. The Old English [y] eventually became
> >> unrounded, tho later the Anglo-Norman [y] became [iw].
> > Front rounded vowels also disappeared in Welsh; whether they
> > were preserved in Cornish is AFAIK a contentious matter among
> > Cornish revivalists. Breton, at any rate, has them.
> > So yes, a loss of front rounded vowels in British Romance is
> > not unlikely.
> >> Old French had a rich set of diphthongs and a few
> >> triphthongs besides; later these all gave way to the
> >> monophthongs of modern French. I see no reason to suppose
> >> that a British romance would have behaved the same way.
> > I see no such reason, either. British Romance may have a rich
> > inventory of diphthongs and triphthongs.
> >> Old northern French also had the phones [θ] and [ð]; they
> >> are now lost in modern French. But as both Welsh & English
> >> retain them (including in Anglo-Norman borrowing such as
> >> _faith_), it is surely like that a British Romance would
> >> have retained these phones also.
> > Quite likely, I think.
> >> So, yes, one must IMO have regard to how Vulgar Latin
> >> developed in northern France, but I'm sure a British
> >> Romancelang would be quite distinctive from modern French,
> >> just as french is distinctive from neighboring Italian,
> >> Catalan or Spanish.
> > Sure.
> > And as for the initial mutations of Brithenig, it is far from
> > certain that a British Romance language would have them. After
> > all, English doesn't. This of course raises the question *when*
> > these mutations arose in the Insular Celtic languages. Most
> > Celticists AFAIK assume that they happened between 400 and 800
> > AD (and Continental Celtic languages never developed them, Dan
> > Jones's Arvorec notwithstanding), but the name _Britannia_ seems
> > to have a mutated initial (otherwise it would be _**Pritannia_,
> > cf. Welsh _Prydein_) - but the /t/ in it shows that intervocalic
> > lenition had not happened yet in British Celtic of 2000 years ago.
> >> =============================================================
> >> On 19/02/2013 05:16, James Kane wrote:
> >>> I have done a Vulgar Latin descended from proto-Germanic
> >>> which isn't too bad because the cases and tenses of
> >>> proto-Germanic collapse nicely,
> >> Yep - and don't forget that Vulgar Latin had two cases,
> >> which were preserved in Old French and in Old Provençal.
> >> (Thinks: Would "Old Britannic" have preserved them?)
> > Perhaps; perhaps not. But eventually, they would have been lost.
> >>> but there was a bit of tempering of the phonology.
> >> Yes - there usually has to be some fudging here because
> >> other languages rarely have the same phonetic inventory as
> >> Vulgar Latin.
> > Amen! I had to fudge the sound changes, especially the vowel
> > changes, *a lot* when I was doing Roman Germanech because
> > Common West Germanic is quite far away from Vulgar Latin in terms
> > of phonology!
> >>> Obviously altlangs are much more interesting to do but
> >>> bogolangs are good for beginners who wish to explore
> >>> diachronic sound changes without as much effort.
> >> Indeed - quite a good exercise for beginners and IMO more
> >> worthwhile than the "relex of English" which is often done.
> > Sure.
> > --
> > ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> > http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> > "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>