Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: On Creating Altlangs

Expand Messages
  • James Kane
    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
    Message 1 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
      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 language.



      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
    • Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro
      I see people creating altlangs/bogolangs between (somewhat) closely related families. Usually Indo-european ones. Does anyone here know of an alt/bogolang
      Message 2 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
        I 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
        Khoisan?


        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
        > language.
        >
        >
        >
        > 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
        >
      • Adam Walker
        Years back someone was working on a Vulgar Latin with Chinese sound changes bogolang, IIRC. Adam
        Message 3 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
          Years back someone was working on a Vulgar Latin with Chinese sound
          changes bogolang, IIRC.

          Adam

          On 2/19/13, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro <hcesarcastro@...> wrote:
          > I 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
          > Khoisan?
          >
          >
          > 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
          >> language.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> 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
          >>
          >
        • R A Brown
          ... [snip] ... Yes, it did. Tho it alone of the Romancelangs has them and the proximity and, indeed, in some places, intermingling with Germanic speakers
          Message 4 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
            On 19/02/2013 16:11, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
            > Hallo conlangers!
            >
            > On Tuesday 19 February 2013 09:19:46 R A Brown wrote:
            >
            [snip]
            >>
            >> I cannot think of any actual examples [of bogolangs]
            >> 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.

            Yes, it did. Tho it alone of the Romancelangs has them and
            the proximity and, indeed, in some places, intermingling
            with Germanic speakers probably helped to maintain them.

            [snip]

            >> 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.

            Yes, I think it would have to be. What is often forgotten
            is that before the establishment of national standards and
            universal education, the western Romance area was a
            linguistic _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy and through to
            Seville and Lisbon. IIRC Andrew assumed that there would
            have been a Saxon settlement in Britain, but on a lesser
            scale than *here*, and that the Romance speakers would
            thereby be separated from their continental brethren and
            develop independently. But IMO that is not likely. Even if
            they were separated by a Saxon speaking area, they would
            still have been too close to be isolated from continental
            Romance; they would not have been like the Romance speakers
            in the Balkans.

            >> 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;

            Yep - it is likely the Old British [u] moved forward to
            rounded high central [ʉ] before becoming unrounded [ɨ] which
            is maintained in the north Walian pronunciation till the
            present day (in the south it has fronted still further to
            become [i]). There was probably a rounded mid central vowel
            before it became unrounded [ɘ] also.

            > whether they were preserved in Cornish is AFAIK a
            > contentious matter among Cornish revivalists. Breton, at
            > any rate, has them.

            Re-enforced by the French around it. Breton has also
            developed some unique features through French influence; it
            alone of the modern Celtic langs has an indefinite article,
            and the perfect tense is not formed with the preposition for
            "after" followed by the verbnoun, as in its sister langs,
            but with "to be" + perfect participle for intransitive
            verbs, and "to have" + perfect participle for transitive ones.

            However, back to a putative British Romance - I think the
            indications are that it would not have had the front rounded
            vowels of northern France.

            > 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.

            It may well have done. They Welsh are fond of diphthongs
            and English doesn't exactly lack them, so I think the
            preservation of them is likely.

            [snip]
            >
            > 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.

            Yet it shares other areal features with Welsh. I've referred
            in an earlier email to the preservation of [θ] and [ð] in
            both languages (one could also add the preservation of [w]),
            but more striking IMO is the development of periphrastic
            tenses with "to be" to express progressive or continuous
            action. Such things are, of course, not unknown in Italian
            with "stare" plus the gerund, but I think this construction
            would have become as common place in Brit-Romance as it is
            in modern English.

            > 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),

            :)

            Yes, this is a features which is not areal since, as you
            observe, English does not have it. Although they are an
            interesting feature, I am doubtful that a Romance language
            would actually have developed grammaticalized initial
            consonant mutation.

            > 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.

            I don't think much can be made of this. The various Greek,
            Latin & British/Welsh forms are derivatives of some
            pre-Celtic and, almost certainly, pre-IE ethnicon - from Old
            Albic? :)

            We don't know what was going on in that unknown language.

            [snip]
            >> 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!

            Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
            ========================================================
            On 19/02/2013 18:13, James Kane wrote:
            > Romanian is almost a real life altlang

            Except for the small fact that it actually developed and
            exists in this world!

            An _altlang_ by definition 'exists' in an alternate timeline.

            > 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

            Exactly - it ain't a living example of a bogolang.

            > but it is obviously influenced by them and different
            > enough from the other Romance languages (while still
            > obviously Romance) without resembling greatly any other
            > language.

            There are resemblances to Romancelangs in the Balkan area
            that have now died out, and it does show certain features
            that make kinship with Italian fairly obvious.

            One will notice that the Romansch dialects have similarly
            been influenced by the high German dialects spoken in
            contiguous areas, and the Moorish influence in Spanish is
            noticeable.

            I admit Romanian is interesting, but I don't think any more
            or less remarkable than most other Romancelangs (personally
            I find the Reto-romance and the Sardinian dialects more
            interesting). I fail to understand how a living language
            can be "almost a real life altlang."

            --
            Ray
            ==================================
            http://www.carolandray.plus.com
            ==================================
            "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
            for individual beings and events."
            [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
          • Jörg Rhiemeier
            Hallo conlangers! ... This is likely. BTW, I am pretty certain that Old High German already had [æ], [ø] and [y] even though they don t show up in writing -
            Message 5 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
              Hallo conlangers!

              On Tuesday 19 February 2013 20:39:08 R A Brown wrote:

              > On 19/02/2013 16:11, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
              > > Hallo conlangers!
              >
              > > On Tuesday 19 February 2013 09:19:46 R A Brown wrote:
              > [snip]
              >
              > >> I cannot think of any actual examples [of bogolangs]
              > >> 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.
              >
              > Yes, it did. Tho it alone of the Romancelangs has them and
              > the proximity and, indeed, in some places, intermingling
              > with Germanic speakers probably helped to maintain them.

              This is likely. BTW, I am pretty certain that Old High German
              already had [æ], [ø] and [y] even though they don't show up in
              writing - they were allophones of /a/, /o/ and /u/ then, and
              there was no need marking them in writing as the conditioning
              /i/ was still present where they occurred. Only when unstressed
              vowels were reduced in Middle High German, the front rounded
              vowels and /æ/ became separate phonemes and had to be marked in
              writing.

              The strong Germanic superstratum influence on Old French probably
              has something to do with the existence of front rounded vowels
              in French alone among the major Romance languages.

              > [...]
              > > 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.
              >
              > Yes, I think it would have to be. What is often forgotten
              > is that before the establishment of national standards and
              > universal education, the western Romance area was a
              > linguistic _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy and through to
              > Seville and Lisbon.

              Yep!

              > IIRC Andrew assumed that there would
              > have been a Saxon settlement in Britain, but on a lesser
              > scale than *here*, and that the Romance speakers would
              > thereby be separated from their continental brethren and
              > develop independently. But IMO that is not likely. Even if
              > they were separated by a Saxon speaking area, they would
              > still have been too close to be isolated from continental
              > Romance; they would not have been like the Romance speakers
              > in the Balkans.

              One would have to have the Saxons break through in the south all
              the way to Cornwall in order to block the Britanno-Romance from
              access to the Channel at an early date (which Andrew did not do).

              > [...]
              > > Front rounded vowels also disappeared in Welsh;
              >
              > Yep - it is likely the Old British [u] moved forward to
              > rounded high central [ʉ] before becoming unrounded [ɨ] which
              > is maintained in the north Walian pronunciation till the
              > present day (in the south it has fronted still further to
              > become [i]). There was probably a rounded mid central vowel
              > before it became unrounded [ɘ] also.

              Yes. That's what I have read about it, too.

              > > whether they were preserved in Cornish is AFAIK a
              > > contentious matter among Cornish revivalists. Breton, at
              > > any rate, has them.
              >
              > Re-enforced by the French around it.

              Probably.

              > Breton has also
              > developed some unique features through French influence; it
              > alone of the modern Celtic langs has an indefinite article,
              > and the perfect tense is not formed with the preposition for
              > "after" followed by the verbnoun, as in its sister langs,
              > but with "to be" + perfect participle for intransitive
              > verbs, and "to have" + perfect participle for transitive ones.

              Right. These features show an SAE influence via French, and
              a departure from the Insular Celtic pattern.

              > However, back to a putative British Romance - I think the
              > indications are that it would not have had the front rounded
              > vowels of northern France.

              Agreed. They would probably have lost their rounding, as in
              English and Welsh.

              > > 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.
              >
              > It may well have done. They Welsh are fond of diphthongs
              > and English doesn't exactly lack them, so I think the
              > preservation of them is likely.

              Makes perfect sense. This language may have lots of diphthongs!

              > [snip]
              >
              > > 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.
              >
              > Yet it shares other areal features with Welsh. I've referred
              > in an earlier email to the preservation of [θ] and [ð] in
              > both languages (one could also add the preservation of [w]),

              Yes, such areal features exist without doubt, even if the pathways
              at which the relevant languages arrive at them are different, and
              do not imply parallel sound changes.

              > but more striking IMO is the development of periphrastic
              > tenses with "to be" to express progressive or continuous
              > action. Such things are, of course, not unknown in Italian
              > with "stare" plus the gerund, but I think this construction
              > would have become as common place in Brit-Romance as it is
              > in modern English.

              Fine. It would thus not be a surprise to meet such constructions
              in Britanno-Romance.

              > > 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),
              > >
              > :)

              I have a Continental Celtic lostlang on the back burner, meant
              to be spoken in the French Alps, with no trace of initial
              mutations or other Insular Celtic features.

              > Yes, this is a features which is not areal since, as you
              > observe, English does not have it. Although they are an
              > interesting feature, I am doubtful that a Romance language
              > would actually have developed grammaticalized initial
              > consonant mutation.

              I wouldn't say it was impossible, but I don't think it is
              very likely.

              This Britanno-Romance thing is certainly an interesting project
              for the LLL, but alas, I have enough things to do already.

              > > 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.
              >
              > I don't think much can be made of this. The various Greek,
              > Latin & British/Welsh forms are derivatives of some
              > pre-Celtic and, almost certainly, pre-IE ethnicon - from Old
              > Albic? :)

              The etymology I am familiar with ascribes it to a Proto-Celtic
              *kWritan- 'many-coloured', but I have no idea where that comes
              from. It may indeed come from a pre-IE language. Maybe Old
              Albic _prith_ 'colour'? (Ah, now I know what the Old Albic
              word for 'colour' is.)

              > We don't know what was going on in that unknown language.

              Indeed not.

              > [snip]
              >
              > >> 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!
              >
              > Always a problem for bogolangers. :)

              Indeed!

              > ========================================================
              >
              > On 19/02/2013 18:13, James Kane wrote:
              > > Romanian is almost a real life altlang
              >
              > Except for the small fact that it actually developed and
              > exists in this world!
              >
              > An _altlang_ by definition 'exists' in an alternate timeline.

              Yes, and thus a language spoken *here* is not an 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
              >
              > Exactly - it ain't a living example of a bogolang.

              It just isn't!

              > > but it is obviously influenced by them and different
              > > enough from the other Romance languages (while still
              > > obviously Romance) without resembling greatly any other
              > > language.
              >
              > There are resemblances to Romancelangs in the Balkan area
              > that have now died out, and it does show certain features
              > that make kinship with Italian fairly obvious.

              Correct. There are a number of Italian-Romanian isoglosses.

              > One will notice that the Romansch dialects have similarly
              > been influenced by the high German dialects spoken in
              > contiguous areas, and the Moorish influence in Spanish is
              > noticeable.

              As is the Basque influence in Spanish and Portuguese.

              > I admit Romanian is interesting, but I don't think any more
              > or less remarkable than most other Romancelangs (personally
              > I find the Reto-romance and the Sardinian dialects more
              > interesting).

              Romanian has some traits that set it off from other Romance
              languages, such as its two-case system (which is of a different
              type than the Old French one), and its obviously Slavic-
              influenced phonology, but it should have become clear by now
              that it is not a real-life bogolang!

              > I fail to understand how a living language
              > can be "almost a real life altlang."

              A "real life altlang" is a contradiction in terms.

              --
              ... 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
            • Roger Mills
              ... 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,
              Message 6 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                --- On Tue, 2/19/13, 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 language.
                =========================================

                Indeed. Years ago, when I was in Rome, I listened to Radio Vatican a lot (good music!). Then they'd have broadcasts in various languages....One was obviously Romance, but nothing I was familiar with. Maybe Catalan?? But noooo-- it was Romanian !!

                General question: what's the "etymology" of _bogolang_? bogus??? It's new to me. Incidentally I find "glosarch" a perfectly good formation--- after all, we have autarch (Gene Wolfe's books), heresiarch and a few others (tetrarch IIRC, what's that?), hardly in wide circulation.
              • Alex Fink
                ... Bogus , yes. For me the term calls particularly to mind Geoff Eddy s primer which invents a Slavicised romlang:
                Message 7 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                  On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:54:06 -0800, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:

                  >General question: what's the "etymology" of _bogolang_? bogus??? It's new to me. Incidentally I find "glosarch" a perfectly good formation--- after all, we have autarch (Gene Wolfe's books), heresiarch and a few others (tetrarch IIRC, what's that?), hardly in wide circulation.

                  "Bogus", yes. For me the term calls particularly to mind Geoff Eddy's primer which invents a Slavicised romlang:
                  http://jc.tech-galaxy.com/bricka/bogo_linguistics.html
                  If I read the initial paragraph not too wrongly, Geoff was the first one to apply "bogus" to the process but the formation "bogolang" was someone else's contribution.

                  On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:33:37 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:

                  >On Tuesday 19 February 2013 20:39:08 R A Brown wrote:
                  >
                  >> I fail to understand how a living language
                  >> can be "almost a real life altlang."
                  >
                  >A "real life altlang" is a contradiction in terms.

                  Agreed, as is "real life bogolang"; this part of the thread is kinda fatuous. If we try to force the terms to apply to natlangs we catch anything that has had its phonology (for that's the part conlangers usually substitute) influenced by language contact effects, and that's a lot. Even if two natlangs did converge phonologically so much that the sound changes applying to them eventually became identical, what is there to make one the template and one the bogus one?

                  Alex
                • father's personal
                  ... General question: what s the etymology of _bogolang_? bogus??? It s new to me. Incidentally I find glosarch a perfectly good formation--- after all, we
                  Message 8 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    --- On Tue, 2/19/13, James Kane <kanejam@...> wrote:

                    General question: what's the "etymology" of _bogolang_? bogus??? It's new to me. Incidentally I find "glosarch" a perfectly good formation--- after all, we have autarch (Gene Wolfe's books), heresiarch and a few others (tetrarch IIRC, what's that?), hardly in wide circulation.

                    ====================
                    A tetrarch is the ruler of a fourth. There are several uses of it in Roman history. I am most familiar with its use in the New Testament as the Roman name for the four sons of Herod the Great. Rome would not give rule over the whole country to one man and divided Judea into four portions, one for each of them, thus breaking up a potential hot spot. There is some discussion, though, as to whether there were three or four divisions. Luke in his gospel mentions Herod Antipas as the tetrarch of Galilee.

                    Charlie
                  • James Kane
                    ... What if Latin survived in the Balkan sprachbund? Probably what I really mean is that Romanian is interesting in its evolution and divergence. Of course a
                    Message 9 of 28 , Feb 20, 2013
                      > One will notice that the Romansch dialects have similarly
                      > been influenced by the high German dialects spoken in
                      > contiguous areas, and the Moorish influence in Spanish is
                      > noticeable.
                      >
                      > I admit Romanian is interesting, but I don't think any more
                      > or less remarkable than most other Romancelangs (personally
                      > I find the Reto-romance and the Sardinian dialects more
                      > interesting). I fail to understand how a living language
                      > can be "almost a real life altlang."
                      >

                      'What if Latin survived in the Balkan sprachbund?'

                      Probably what I really mean is that Romanian is interesting in its evolution and divergence.

                      Of course a language cannot be a real world example of an altlang, but it could certainly be used as an example of language changes that make a language unique in that it is not quite Balkan or Slavic or Greek but influenced by all of these and quite far from the other Romance languages in terms of its irregular plurals and noun case and postposed definite article etc. one could say that about all the Romance languages - the Rhaeto-Romance languages obviously show similar divergence - or even all languages in the world, but real-life languages are where conlangers get their inspiration from so I see no problem in drawing analogues to certain types of conlangs.
                    • BPJ
                      ... But that s what allows them to break out of the bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally ambiguous coinage!) so it s actually a good thing.
                      Message 10 of 28 , Feb 20, 2013
                        On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
                        >>> 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!
                        >
                        > Always a problem for bogolangers. :)

                        But that's what allows them to break out of the
                        bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
                        ambiguous coinage!) so it's actually a good thing. I
                        found that doing a bogolang a second time wasn't
                        anywhere near as fun as the first time -- especially
                        not when it wasn't also a way of learning about one of
                        the languages in the mix -- but starting to think in
                        terms of what *realistically* could have happened
                        to language A under conditions B, proved more
                        interesting, yet you generally need to peg even an
                        altlang on something, like what features of English and
                        Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
                        have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
                        still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
                        language B's turf, with the difference that one tries
                        to create something which *might* have evolved under
                        normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
                        by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
                        *could not* have so evolved.

                        My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
                        decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
                        Italian, which was certainly not realistic: essentially
                        Italian with apocope, syncope and dipthongization of VL
                        /e:/ and /o:/ -- actually Spanish style since it
                        applied in closed syllables as well -- and even of
                        *Latin* /a:/ since in youthful folly I thought the
                        merger of Latin /a/ and /a:/ in VL was a terrible loss!
                        :-) When I decided to redo it some years ago wanted to
                        strive for realism but I also decided that my aesthetic
                        predilections were going to have the last word,
                        preferably coming up with some plausible scenario for
                        how it came to be so. Unfortunately the result wasn't
                        too bloody different: Occitan[^1] with Francien-style
                        diphthongization instead of Italian with bastard Hispano-
                        Francien-style diphthongization, and only the faintest
                        Italian influence in vocabulary and verbal system. Its
                        perhaps most redeeming trait is totally unrealistic:
                        *Germanic-style* i-umlaut triggered i.a. by an Italian-
                        style development of -AS, -OS, -ES into */i/. The only
                        thing which doesn't make it a total parody is the
                        premise that it beside being at least plausible
                        above all should reflect its author's aesthetic
                        predilections; the only thing which could save it
                        would be finding some more or less a-priori trait
                        which would both be agreable to those predilections
                        and capable of being made plausible.

                        An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
                        up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
                        conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
                        does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
                        parody of the thing glanced at, unless it is spiced up
                        with something which is probably implausible. Neither
                        is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
                        one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
                        aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,
                        and you may do that as well through both -- perhaps
                        even more through the bogolang since it gives
                        opportunity to contemplate *how* and *why* its super-
                        and substrate differ.

                        /bpj

                        [^1]: Occitan, which BTW *is* -- historically speaking,
                        at least ;-( -- a major Romance language *and* has
                        front rounded vowels like the whole 'Gallo- Italian'
                        subgroup.
                      • carolandray+ray
                        I m away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting may not be brilliant. ... [snip] ... _May_ allow them if: 1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g.
                        Message 11 of 28 , Feb 21, 2013
                          I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
                          may not be brilliant.

                          On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
                          > On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
                          [snip]
                          >>> 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!
                          >>
                          >> Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
                          >
                          > But that's what allows them to break out of the
                          > bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
                          > ambiguous coinage!)

                          _May_ allow them if:
                          1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g. applying Bantu
                          phonological developments to Vulgar Latin is IMHO not a
                          plausible scenario and no altlang, as I understand the word,
                          will result.
                          2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
                          plausible situation.

                          > so it's actually a good thing.

                          Not necessarily IMO. Some bogolangs I've seen remain
                          bogolangs & do not cross the threshold into the altosphere.

                          [snip]
                          > yet you generally need to peg even an
                          > altlang on something, like what features of English and
                          > Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
                          > have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
                          > still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
                          > language B's turf,

                          No - that is not the same as applying, say, Welsh or Irish or
                          Germanic diachronic sound changes to Vulgar Latin. AIUI a
                          bogolang is produced by:
                          1. taking language A;
                          2. forming a "master plan" from the diachronic sound of language B;
                          3. applying the "master plan" to language A.

                          That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.

                          > with the difference that one tries
                          > to create something which *might* have evolved under
                          > normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
                          > by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
                          > *could not* have so evolved.

                          Of course.

                          > My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
                          > decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
                          > Italian, which was certainly not realistic:

                          I'm not sure what "ideal" means in that context.

                          As this was a dialect _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy, there
                          was in reality a whole band of "mix between French and Italian"
                          languages. Some may well still survive despite attempts of schools
                          to impose the national languages of the two countries within their
                          national borders.
                          essentially

                          [snip]
                          >
                          > An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
                          > up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
                          > conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
                          > does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
                          > parody of the thing glanced at,

                          It does run such a risk, if the side glances are not checked
                          and kept in balance. As I've observed before, I think Brithenig
                          paid undue attention to Welsh, including...

                          > unless it is spiced up
                          > with something which is probably implausible.

                          ...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.
                          Implausibility may add spice, but then the thing passes from the
                          altosphere into the artosphere.

                          > Neither
                          > is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
                          > one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
                          > aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,

                          Is it? I agree with "learning about language", but is all
                          conlanging about "aesthetic gratification"? Some auxlangers
                          may want a result that is aesthetically pleasing, but I am not
                          convinced that they all do. I'm not certain that aesthetics are
                          a prime concern of engelangers.

                          Aesthetic considerations certainly do not play any part in TAKE; it
                          was just an experiment in trying to produce an "ancient Greek without
                          inflexions." Nor I convinced that way back in the 17th century Dr
                          Outis
                          was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
                          Philippe
                          Labbé was.

                          Ray.
                        • Jörg Rhiemeier
                          Hallo conlangers! ... Never mind. It came out OK. ... Yes. ... I have seen several bogolangs that were broken beyond repair, usually starting with an utterly
                          Message 12 of 28 , Feb 21, 2013
                            Hallo conlangers!

                            On Thursday 21 February 2013 11:20:03 R A Brown wrote:

                            > I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
                            > may not be brilliant.

                            Never mind. It came out OK.

                            > On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
                            > > On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
                            > [snip]
                            >
                            > >>> 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!
                            > >>
                            > >> Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
                            > >
                            > > But that's what allows them to break out of the
                            > > bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
                            > > ambiguous coinage!)
                            >
                            > _May_ allow them if:
                            > 1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g. applying Bantu
                            > phonological developments to Vulgar Latin is IMHO not a
                            > plausible scenario and no altlang, as I understand the word,
                            > will result.
                            > 2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
                            > plausible situation.

                            Yes.

                            > > so it's actually a good thing.
                            >
                            > Not necessarily IMO. Some bogolangs I've seen remain
                            > bogolangs & do not cross the threshold into the altosphere.

                            I have seen several bogolangs that were broken beyond repair,
                            usually starting with an utterly implausible scenario (often
                            involving Roman mercenaries in Africa, China or wherever).

                            A common failure mode of bogolangs is to ignore those phonemes
                            of the starting language which are not covered by the GMP because
                            the language the GMP is based on does not have them, and leave
                            them unchanged in the midst of the turmoil.

                            > [snip]
                            >
                            > > yet you generally need to peg even an
                            > >
                            > > altlang on something, like what features of English and
                            > > Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
                            > > have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
                            > > still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
                            > > language B's turf,
                            >
                            > No - that is not the same as applying, say, Welsh or Irish or
                            > Germanic diachronic sound changes to Vulgar Latin. AIUI a
                            > bogolang is produced by:
                            > 1. taking language A;
                            > 2. forming a "master plan" from the diachronic sound of language B;
                            > 3. applying the "master plan" to language A.

                            Yes, that's how the word _bogolang_ is usually defined.

                            > That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.

                            Indeed not!

                            My Hesperic family, a family of European lostlangs meant to
                            represent the residues of a Neolithic European language family,
                            will not contain *any* bogolangs. Some of the languages are
                            *inspired* by the phonologies of Indo-European languages of the
                            relevant region, which I justify by assuming areal influences
                            being in play, and some parallels in the sound changes occur
                            here or there (for instance, Proto-Alpianic has undergone a
                            consonant shift not unlike the High German consonant shift
                            - in its complete and thorough form as found in Swiss German,
                            complete with velar affricates - but it is not the same shift,
                            starting, to mention one point, with *three* grades of stops
                            rather than two in German, and many other things, such as the
                            vowels, have developed in utterly different ways), and there will
                            be three Albic languages showing some resemblance to Welsh, Irish
                            and Quenya respectively, but even those won't be bogolangs. It is
                            infinitely more realistic and especially more *fun* to develop
                            your own sound changes than to apply those of an existing language
                            to another language!

                            Geoff Eddy, author of Breathanach, had a conlang family, named
                            "Sunovian", which seemed to involve a great degree of bogolanging,
                            applying sound changes of various IE languages and of Quenya to
                            an a priori proto-language.

                            > > with the difference that one tries
                            > > to create something which *might* have evolved under
                            > > normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
                            > > by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
                            > > *could not* have so evolved.
                            >
                            > Of course.

                            Yes. Some artlangs could never have so evolved. Of course, this
                            does not necessarily mean that the language was a bad artlang, if
                            the motivation is not one of realism. But an altlang or a lostlang
                            must be crafted in a way that one can say, "Yes, this language
                            could have evolved that way", otherwise it is a failure.

                            > > My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
                            > > decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
                            > > Italian, which was certainly not realistic:
                            > I'm not sure what "ideal" means in that context.

                            Nor am I. Ideal things live on a separate tier of existence
                            which in turn only exists in the mind of Platonists ;)

                            > As this was a dialect _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy, there
                            > was in reality a whole band of "mix between French and Italian"
                            > languages. Some may well still survive despite attempts of schools
                            > to impose the national languages of the two countries within their
                            > national borders.

                            Yep. The dialects of northern Italy, I have been told, show
                            many features where they are closer to Gallo-Romance than to
                            Standard Italian.

                            > essentially
                            >
                            > [snip]
                            >
                            > > An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
                            > > up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
                            > > conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
                            > > does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
                            > > parody of the thing glanced at,
                            >
                            > It does run such a risk, if the side glances are not checked
                            > and kept in balance. As I've observed before, I think Brithenig
                            > paid undue attention to Welsh, including...

                            It did.

                            > > unless it is spiced up
                            > > with something which is probably implausible.
                            >
                            > ...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.

                            Yes. Romance spelling is largely etymological, and you'd only
                            get _f_ for /v/ if you have a /f/ > /v/ rule, which Brithenig
                            IMHO doesn't have. (Not that I'd have a clue how _f_ ended up
                            representing /v/ in Welsh, though.)

                            > Implausibility may add spice, but then the thing passes from the
                            > altosphere into the artosphere.

                            Certainly.

                            > > Neither
                            > > is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
                            > > one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
                            > > aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,
                            >
                            > Is it? I agree with "learning about language", but is all
                            > conlanging about "aesthetic gratification"? Some auxlangers
                            > may want a result that is aesthetically pleasing, but I am not
                            > convinced that they all do. I'm not certain that aesthetics are
                            > a prime concern of engelangers.

                            Head on. Aesthetic gratification is a goal in many (but not
                            all) artlangs; Tolkien's Elvish languages are a case in point.
                            It is less of a concern of engelangers (who strive for a more
                            rational notion of "elegance"), or of auxlangers.

                            > Aesthetic considerations certainly do not play any part in TAKE; it
                            > was just an experiment in trying to produce an "ancient Greek without
                            > inflexions." Nor I convinced that way back in the 17th century Dr
                            > Outis
                            > was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
                            > Philippe
                            > Labbé was.

                            Yep.

                            > Ray.

                            --
                            ... 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
                          • BPJ
                            ... OK, I should have added if the scenario isn t all too outrageous. ... OK, so maybe I m expecting to much of the average newbie, but essentially I agree
                            Message 13 of 28 , Feb 21, 2013
                              On 2013-02-21 11:20, carolandray+ray wrote:
                              > I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
                              > may not be brilliant.
                              >
                              > On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
                              >> On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
                              > [snip]
                              >>>> 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!
                              >>>
                              >>> Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
                              >>
                              >> But that's what allows them to break out of the
                              >> bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
                              >> ambiguous coinage!)
                              >
                              > _May_ allow them if:
                              > 1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g. applying Bantu
                              > phonological developments to Vulgar Latin is IMHO not a
                              > plausible scenario and no altlang, as I understand the word,
                              > will result.

                              OK, I should have added "if the scenario isn't all too outrageous.

                              > 2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
                              > plausible situation.

                              OK, so maybe I'm expecting to much of the average newbie,
                              but essentially I agree with these points.

                              >
                              >> so it's actually a good thing.
                              >
                              > Not necessarily IMO. Some bogolangs I've seen remain
                              > bogolangs & do not cross the threshold into the altosphere.

                              Surely. Did I say otherwise? "Allow" and "make" ain't the same thing.

                              > [snip]
                              >> yet you generally need to peg even an
                              >> altlang on something, like what features of English and
                              >> Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
                              >> have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
                              >> still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
                              >> language B's turf,
                              >
                              > No - that is not the same as applying, say, Welsh or Irish or
                              > Germanic diachronic sound changes to Vulgar Latin. AIUI a
                              > bogolang is produced by:
                              > 1. taking language A;
                              > 2. forming a "master plan" from the diachronic sound of language B;
                              > 3. applying the "master plan" to language A.
                              >
                              > That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.

                              No, but strictly speaking such a language, had it
                              existed, might or might not have any similarities to
                              Welsh or English at all; there is simply no way to
                              know, although the lack of influence from Gaulish in
                              French or from Brittonic in English makes "might not"
                              seem the safer guess. I see nothing wrong in donning a
                              Montesquieuan hat as a design strategy in doing an
                              altlang or a bogolang, but it's as arbitrary in either
                              case, the difference being that the 'weak' areal
                              traits/sprachbund version may actually produce
                              something plausible. However something entirely
                              arbitrary, on the "sound changes I like" principle,
                              might be just as plausible. I actually created Rhodrese
                              on that principle, and it just turned out as something
                              which might possibly, if not probably, have arosen in
                              Gaul, so I located it there after the fact.

                              >
                              >> with the difference that one tries
                              >> to create something which *might* have evolved under
                              >> normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
                              >> by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
                              >> *could not* have so evolved.
                              >
                              > Of course.
                              >
                              >> My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
                              >> decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
                              >> Italian, which was certainly not realistic:
                              >
                              > I'm not sure what "ideal" means in that context.

                              Note the scare quotes! My personal predilections which my
                              youthful self regarded as 'ideal'. I was clear about the
                              subjectivity, but not about the semantics of "ideal"! :-)

                              >
                              > As this was a dialect _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy, there
                              > was in reality a whole band of "mix between French and Italian"
                              > languages. Some may well still survive despite attempts of schools
                              > to impose the national languages of the two countries within their
                              > national borders.
                              > essentially

                              Several Gallo-Italian varieties live on to varying degrees
                              in the Alpine valleys of Italy, where the school system's
                              attitude to how the students speak out of class seems much
                              more relaxed than (it traditionally was) in France
                              <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha>.

                              I see now that the particular mix of features of my
                              youthful "Roumain" (sic!), high mid diphthongization
                              *and* lack of intervocalic lenition, may perhaps be
                              found "sur la côte Sud-Est de l'Italie, depuis Molfetta
                              jusque dans l'intérieur des Abruzzes" which is an _ei_
                              area, but it still doesn't seem very interesting to my
                              present self. Something like the current Rhodrese --
                              **minus** i-umlaut -- is perhaps more *plausible* to
                              actually (have) exist(ed) somewhere in the continuum,
                              but it's not more *likely* in any way. First and last
                              its only raison d'être is as a reflection of my
                              personal lámatyáve, but I do also wish for it to
                              possess a modicum of plausibility which "Roumain"
                              didn't. There's no telling how my self thirty years
                              into the future will judge it of course.

                              > [snip]
                              >>
                              >> An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
                              >> up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
                              >> conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
                              >> does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
                              >> parody of the thing glanced at,
                              >
                              > It does run such a risk, if the side glances are not checked
                              > and kept in balance. As I've observed before, I think Brithenig
                              > paid undue attention to Welsh, including...
                              >
                              >> unless it is spiced up
                              >> with something which is probably implausible.
                              >
                              > ...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.
                              > Implausibility may add spice, but then the thing passes from the
                              > altosphere into the artosphere.

                              Yes, at least unless VL /f/ were regularly lenited to
                              /v/, but then intervocalic /f/ was rather rare in
                              Latin. Actually a Britanno-Romance which coexisted with
                              Old English could have picked up the _f_ == [v] mapping
                              from OE; not very likely but possible.

                              I'd say spelling is a rather superficial aspect. I
                              don't think the way Rhodrese uses the digraphs _ch gh
                              gn gl tx_ makes it anymore like Italian, Rumantsch or
                              Basque *as a language*, but nor do I think that the
                              presence or lack of linguistic similarity makes it more
                              or less likely that it would have those spellings
                              either, though its chosen geographical and cultural
                              position, and the way Latin GN, C'L and X developed and
                              some back vowels after /k g/ ended up as front vowels
                              in the language, might.

                              >
                              >> Neither
                              >> is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
                              >> one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
                              >> aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,
                              >
                              > Is it? I agree with "learning about language", but is all
                              > conlanging about "aesthetic gratification"? Some auxlangers
                              > may want a result that is aesthetically pleasing, but I am not
                              > convinced that they all do. I'm not certain that aesthetics are
                              > a prime concern of engelangers.
                              >
                              > Aesthetic considerations certainly do not play any part in TAKE; it
                              > was just an experiment in trying to produce an "ancient Greek without
                              > inflexions." Nor I convinced that way back in the 17th century
                              > Dr Outis
                              > was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
                              > Philippe
                              > Labbé was.

                              Perhaps not if you equate "aesthetic" with "beauty". I
                              don't. I think there is always an element of
                              consideration of artistic impact and appearance. How
                              much and in what way may differ of course, as do the
                              relevant preferences and concerns of the author and the
                              perceived audience. Surely even the most cacophonous
                              and/or mechanical engelang somehow reflects the
                              artistic preferences and sensibilities of its author,
                              or it would turn out differently. All engelangs I've
                              seen have some sort of 'aesthetic coherence', as does
                              the Black Speech which Tolkien meant to reflect his
                              idea of ugliness (it isn't phonaesthetically or
                              'morphoaesthetically' ugly to me, but the idea
                              expressed in its main extant text is no more or less
                              repulsive for that!)

                              /bpj
                            • Jörg Rhiemeier
                              Hallo conlangers! ... Sure. Making a bogolang with a plausible scenario (I don t like this word, and prefer calling them graftlangs , as grafting is what
                              Message 14 of 28 , Feb 21, 2013
                                Hallo conlangers!

                                On Thursday 21 February 2013 18:25:45 BPJ wrote:

                                > On 2013-02-21 11:20, carolandray+ray wrote:
                                > > I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
                                > > may not be brilliant.
                                > >
                                > > On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
                                > >> On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
                                > [...]
                                > >> But that's what allows them to break out of the
                                > >> bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
                                > >> ambiguous coinage!)
                                > >
                                > > _May_ allow them if:
                                > > 1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g. applying Bantu
                                > > phonological developments to Vulgar Latin is IMHO not a
                                > > plausible scenario and no altlang, as I understand the word,
                                > > will result.
                                >
                                > OK, I should have added "if the scenario isn't all too outrageous.
                                >
                                > > 2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
                                > > plausible situation.
                                >
                                > OK, so maybe I'm expecting to much of the average newbie,
                                > but essentially I agree with these points.

                                Sure. Making a "bogolang" with a plausible scenario (I don't like
                                this word, and prefer calling them "graftlangs", as grafting is
                                what happens here) is a cheap and easy way of getting to a passable
                                (though not really a good) altlang, or at least to a first draft
                                of an altlang, which can be refined by tweaking the sound changes
                                to make things make sense. (And we all know that language change
                                is more than just sound change!) Yet, a really *good* altlang
                                needs more work than just grafting sound changes of language A
                                onto language B. You have to tweak the sound changes to match
                                the phonology of language B, which always will be different from
                                that of language A; you need to account for the morphology and
                                syntax, etc.

                                > >> so it's actually a good thing.
                                > >
                                > > Not necessarily IMO. Some bogolangs I've seen remain
                                > > bogolangs & do not cross the threshold into the altosphere.
                                >
                                > Surely. Did I say otherwise? "Allow" and "make" ain't the same thing.

                                Indeed not.

                                > > [snip]
                                > >
                                > >> yet you generally need to peg even an
                                > >>
                                > >> altlang on something, like what features of English and
                                > >> Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
                                > >> have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
                                > >> still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
                                > >> language B's turf,
                                > >
                                > > No - that is not the same as applying, say, Welsh or Irish or
                                > > Germanic diachronic sound changes to Vulgar Latin. AIUI a
                                > > bogolang is produced by:
                                > > 1. taking language A;
                                > > 2. forming a "master plan" from the diachronic sound of language B;
                                > > 3. applying the "master plan" to language A.
                                > >
                                > > That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.
                                >
                                > No, but strictly speaking such a language, had it
                                > existed, might or might not have any similarities to
                                > Welsh or English at all; there is simply no way to
                                > know, although the lack of influence from Gaulish in
                                > French or from Brittonic in English makes "might not"
                                > seem the safer guess.

                                Indeed there is no way to know what kind of language would have
                                evolved in Britain if Latin had survived there; assuming that
                                it evolved in similar ways as Welsh is just an application of
                                the "ceteris paribus" principle that is widely considered a
                                "tool of the trade" among alternative history writers.

                                But the ceteris paribus principle does not always work out well,
                                and there are differences between British Celtic and a British
                                Vulgar Latin, such as the latter being in contact with a
                                continental dialect continuum while the former is not.

                                And finally, the ceteris paribus principle in this case led to
                                an *interesting* conlang. While one may be of the opinion that
                                a Modern British Romance would be much like many other Romance
                                languages, Brithenig shows a number of traits that set it aside
                                from the usual Romance fare, such as its initial mutations.

                                Surely, Brithenig is among the better among the many romlangs
                                that have appeared in the last 15 years - it is quite plausible
                                (as opposed to "Bantu-Romance" or "Sino-Romance" languages),
                                and it shows some interesting departures from the Standard
                                Average European structure of the Romance natlangs - and that
                                in quite a plausible way (after all, Welsh shows that a
                                language with those features could evolve in Britain)!

                                > I see nothing wrong in donning a
                                > Montesquieuan hat as a design strategy in doing an
                                > altlang or a bogolang, but it's as arbitrary in either
                                > case, the difference being that the 'weak' areal
                                > traits/sprachbund version may actually produce
                                > something plausible.

                                Right. Brithenig is just *one* of many languages which *could*
                                have evolved in Britain if Latin had prevailed there; there is
                                nothing in it which could not have happened, I think.

                                > However something entirely
                                > arbitrary, on the "sound changes I like" principle,
                                > might be just as plausible.

                                Yes!

                                > I actually created Rhodrese
                                > on that principle, and it just turned out as something
                                > which might possibly, if not probably, have arosen in
                                > Gaul, so I located it there after the fact.

                                The current location of Roman Germanech in the Odenwald is also
                                after the fact. The language started as a language spoken in
                                the entirety of Germany in a timeline where Varus defeated
                                Arminius and Germany all the way to the Elbe river became a
                                Roman province. This was considered for addition to Ill
                                Bethisad, but never canonized and abandoned later. When I
                                started the League of Lost Languages, I decided that Roman
                                Germanech could be the Romance language that survived in the
                                Mosel valley *here* until about 1100.

                                The snag was that the sound changes of that Romance language
                                variety are known (they just weren't known to *me*), and turned
                                out to be utterly different from those of Roman Germanech
                                (basically, Mosel Romance was just an "ordinary" northern Gallo-
                                Romance language). Also, the sound changes of Roman Germanech
                                did not match those of the *German* dialects of that area (most
                                glaringly, the Mosel valley is north of the Speyer line, the
                                northern limit of the /p/ > /pf/ change which occurred in Roman
                                Germanech just as in Standard German).

                                I needed to find a place in Germany where the Romans have once
                                been, that had a more or less "fitting" dialect, and was
                                sufficiently out of the way of the main traffic arteries to
                                allow the survival of a Romance language pocket. The Odenwald
                                at least got close enough to such a location and I could not
                                find a better one (Thuringia, the homeland of Standard German,
                                would have been perfect with regard to the local dialect, but
                                it was utterly beyond the limits of the Roman Empire!), so I
                                placed the language there.

                                > >> with the difference that one tries
                                > >> to create something which *might* have evolved under
                                > >> normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
                                > >> by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
                                > >> *could not* have so evolved.
                                > >
                                > > Of course.
                                > >
                                > >> My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
                                > >> decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
                                > >
                                > >> Italian, which was certainly not realistic:
                                > > I'm not sure what "ideal" means in that context.
                                >
                                > Note the scare quotes! My personal predilections which my
                                > youthful self regarded as 'ideal'. I was clear about the
                                > subjectivity, but not about the semantics of "ideal"! :-)

                                Sure.

                                > > As this was a dialect _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy, there
                                > > was in reality a whole band of "mix between French and Italian"
                                > > languages. Some may well still survive despite attempts of schools
                                > > to impose the national languages of the two countries within their
                                > > national borders.
                                > > essentially
                                >
                                > Several Gallo-Italian varieties live on to varying degrees
                                > in the Alpine valleys of Italy, where the school system's
                                > attitude to how the students speak out of class seems much
                                > more relaxed than (it traditionally was) in France
                                > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha>.

                                Yes.

                                > I see now that the particular mix of features of my
                                > youthful "Roumain" (sic!), high mid diphthongization
                                > *and* lack of intervocalic lenition, may perhaps be
                                > found "sur la côte Sud-Est de l'Italie, depuis Molfetta
                                > jusque dans l'intérieur des Abruzzes" which is an _ei_
                                > area, but it still doesn't seem very interesting to my
                                > present self. Something like the current Rhodrese --
                                > **minus** i-umlaut -- is perhaps more *plausible* to
                                > actually (have) exist(ed) somewhere in the continuum,
                                > but it's not more *likely* in any way. First and last
                                > its only raison d'être is as a reflection of my
                                > personal lámatyáve, but I do also wish for it to
                                > possess a modicum of plausibility which "Roumain"
                                > didn't. There's no telling how my self thirty years
                                > into the future will judge it of course.

                                I now feel that Roman Germanech is a rather mediocre conlang,
                                at any rate not getting anywhere near what I can achieve now
                                in Old Albic; even the lesser members of the Hesperic family
                                can at least compete with it. Yet, it has some strong points,
                                such as the "leapfrogging" change of VL /E/ and /O/ to /i/ and
                                /u/, respectively, which was not even intended that way but
                                fell out of the combination of Western Romance /E, O/ >
                                /ie, uo/ and German /ie, yø, uo/ > /i:, y:, u:/. It is not so
                                decrepit that I feel like trashing it; but I do not have any
                                further plans with it, other than finishing up and publicating
                                a grammar sketch with a few sample texts and some vocabulary.

                                > [...]
                                > > ...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.
                                > > Implausibility may add spice, but then the thing passes from the
                                > > altosphere into the artosphere.
                                >
                                > Yes, at least unless VL /f/ were regularly lenited to
                                > /v/, but then intervocalic /f/ was rather rare in
                                > Latin.

                                It was. Latin /f/ could occur word-internally only in the
                                second members of compounds and in prefixed forms.

                                > Actually a Britanno-Romance which coexisted with
                                > Old English could have picked up the _f_ == [v] mapping
                                > from OE; not very likely but possible.

                                Yes. After all, Welsh somehow came up with this convention!
                                Yet, if there had been a Romance continuity in Britain, there
                                probably would have been a stronger continuity of *writing* in
                                Romance Britain, and the orthography of British Romance more
                                in tune with the rest of Romance.

                                > I'd say spelling is a rather superficial aspect.

                                Sure.

                                > I
                                > don't think the way Rhodrese uses the digraphs _ch gh
                                > gn gl tx_ makes it anymore like Italian, Rumantsch or
                                > Basque *as a language*, but nor do I think that the
                                > presence or lack of linguistic similarity makes it more
                                > or less likely that it would have those spellings
                                > either, though its chosen geographical and cultural
                                > position, and the way Latin GN, C'L and X developed and
                                > some back vowels after /k g/ ended up as front vowels
                                > in the language, might.

                                My spelling of Roman Germanech is partly based on that of
                                German, but it is not identical, after all, the phonologies
                                are not the same, and I wanted Romance continuity to be
                                respected in it. So, I have three letters for /s/, namely
                                _s_ (for /s/ < Lat. /s/), _z_ (for /s/ < Lat. /t/) and
                                _x_ (for /s/ < Lat. /ks/). The affricate /ts/, however,
                                is always spelled _tz_.

                                > >> Neither
                                > >> is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
                                > >> one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
                                > >> aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,
                                > >
                                > > Is it? I agree with "learning about language", but is all
                                > > conlanging about "aesthetic gratification"? Some auxlangers
                                > > may want a result that is aesthetically pleasing, but I am not
                                > > convinced that they all do. I'm not certain that aesthetics are
                                > > a prime concern of engelangers.
                                > >
                                > > Aesthetic considerations certainly do not play any part in TAKE; it
                                > > was just an experiment in trying to produce an "ancient Greek without
                                > > inflexions." Nor I convinced that way back in the 17th century
                                > > Dr Outis
                                > > was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
                                > > Philippe
                                > > Labbé was.
                                >
                                > Perhaps not if you equate "aesthetic" with "beauty". I
                                > don't. I think there is always an element of
                                > consideration of artistic impact and appearance. How
                                > much and in what way may differ of course, as do the
                                > relevant preferences and concerns of the author and the
                                > perceived audience. Surely even the most cacophonous
                                > and/or mechanical engelang somehow reflects the
                                > artistic preferences and sensibilities of its author,
                                > or it would turn out differently.

                                Probably. Few people want to create something they themselves
                                find ugly; and I don't think that engelangers are an exception
                                here. And often, beauty falls out of objective design goals.
                                Perhaps the elegant shape of a wind turbine is a good comparison
                                here - the wind turbine is shaped the way it is not because of
                                some designer's whim, but because that shape makes for an
                                efficient conversion of wind force into electric energy - but it
                                is this efficiency that results in an elegant design. (Also,
                                part of the beauty of a wind turbine is of course that it is a
                                *clean* machine, producing energy without any toxic waste
                                products.)

                                > All engelangs I've
                                > seen have some sort of 'aesthetic coherence', as does
                                > the Black Speech which Tolkien meant to reflect his
                                > idea of ugliness (it isn't phonaesthetically or
                                > 'morphoaesthetically' ugly to me, but the idea
                                > expressed in its main extant text is no more or less
                                > repulsive for that!)

                                Black Speech is less ugly than Klingon, if you ask me ;)

                                --
                                ... 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
                              • MorphemeAddict
                                ... But elegance is a form of esthetics. stevo
                                Message 15 of 28 , Feb 21, 2013
                                  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>wrote:

                                  > Hallo conlangers!
                                  >
                                  > On Thursday 21 February 2013 11:20:03 R A Brown wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
                                  > > may not be brilliant.
                                  >
                                  > Never mind. It came out OK.
                                  >
                                  > > On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
                                  > > > On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
                                  > > [snip]
                                  > >
                                  > > >>> 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!
                                  > > >>
                                  > > >> Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
                                  > > >
                                  > > > But that's what allows them to break out of the
                                  > > > bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
                                  > > > ambiguous coinage!)
                                  > >
                                  > > _May_ allow them if:
                                  > > 1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g. applying Bantu
                                  > > phonological developments to Vulgar Latin is IMHO not a
                                  > > plausible scenario and no altlang, as I understand the word,
                                  > > will result.
                                  > > 2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
                                  > > plausible situation.
                                  >
                                  > Yes.
                                  >
                                  > > > so it's actually a good thing.
                                  > >
                                  > > Not necessarily IMO. Some bogolangs I've seen remain
                                  > > bogolangs & do not cross the threshold into the altosphere.
                                  >
                                  > I have seen several bogolangs that were broken beyond repair,
                                  > usually starting with an utterly implausible scenario (often
                                  > involving Roman mercenaries in Africa, China or wherever).
                                  >
                                  > A common failure mode of bogolangs is to ignore those phonemes
                                  > of the starting language which are not covered by the GMP because
                                  > the language the GMP is based on does not have them, and leave
                                  > them unchanged in the midst of the turmoil.
                                  >
                                  > > [snip]
                                  > >
                                  > > > yet you generally need to peg even an
                                  > > >
                                  > > > altlang on something, like what features of English and
                                  > > > Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
                                  > > > have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
                                  > > > still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
                                  > > > language B's turf,
                                  > >
                                  > > No - that is not the same as applying, say, Welsh or Irish or
                                  > > Germanic diachronic sound changes to Vulgar Latin. AIUI a
                                  > > bogolang is produced by:
                                  > > 1. taking language A;
                                  > > 2. forming a "master plan" from the diachronic sound of language B;
                                  > > 3. applying the "master plan" to language A.
                                  >
                                  > Yes, that's how the word _bogolang_ is usually defined.
                                  >
                                  > > That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.
                                  >
                                  > Indeed not!
                                  >
                                  > My Hesperic family, a family of European lostlangs meant to
                                  > represent the residues of a Neolithic European language family,
                                  > will not contain *any* bogolangs. Some of the languages are
                                  > *inspired* by the phonologies of Indo-European languages of the
                                  > relevant region, which I justify by assuming areal influences
                                  > being in play, and some parallels in the sound changes occur
                                  > here or there (for instance, Proto-Alpianic has undergone a
                                  > consonant shift not unlike the High German consonant shift
                                  > - in its complete and thorough form as found in Swiss German,
                                  > complete with velar affricates - but it is not the same shift,
                                  > starting, to mention one point, with *three* grades of stops
                                  > rather than two in German, and many other things, such as the
                                  > vowels, have developed in utterly different ways), and there will
                                  > be three Albic languages showing some resemblance to Welsh, Irish
                                  > and Quenya respectively, but even those won't be bogolangs. It is
                                  > infinitely more realistic and especially more *fun* to develop
                                  > your own sound changes than to apply those of an existing language
                                  > to another language!
                                  >
                                  > Geoff Eddy, author of Breathanach, had a conlang family, named
                                  > "Sunovian", which seemed to involve a great degree of bogolanging,
                                  > applying sound changes of various IE languages and of Quenya to
                                  > an a priori proto-language.
                                  >
                                  > > > with the difference that one tries
                                  > > > to create something which *might* have evolved under
                                  > > > normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
                                  > > > by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
                                  > > > *could not* have so evolved.
                                  > >
                                  > > Of course.
                                  >
                                  > Yes. Some artlangs could never have so evolved. Of course, this
                                  > does not necessarily mean that the language was a bad artlang, if
                                  > the motivation is not one of realism. But an altlang or a lostlang
                                  > must be crafted in a way that one can say, "Yes, this language
                                  > could have evolved that way", otherwise it is a failure.
                                  >
                                  > > > My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
                                  > > > decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
                                  > > > Italian, which was certainly not realistic:
                                  > > I'm not sure what "ideal" means in that context.
                                  >
                                  > Nor am I. Ideal things live on a separate tier of existence
                                  > which in turn only exists in the mind of Platonists ;)
                                  >
                                  > > As this was a dialect _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy, there
                                  > > was in reality a whole band of "mix between French and Italian"
                                  > > languages. Some may well still survive despite attempts of schools
                                  > > to impose the national languages of the two countries within their
                                  > > national borders.
                                  >
                                  > Yep. The dialects of northern Italy, I have been told, show
                                  > many features where they are closer to Gallo-Romance than to
                                  > Standard Italian.
                                  >
                                  > > essentially
                                  > >
                                  > > [snip]
                                  > >
                                  > > > An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
                                  > > > up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
                                  > > > conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
                                  > > > does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
                                  > > > parody of the thing glanced at,
                                  > >
                                  > > It does run such a risk, if the side glances are not checked
                                  > > and kept in balance. As I've observed before, I think Brithenig
                                  > > paid undue attention to Welsh, including...
                                  >
                                  > It did.
                                  >
                                  > > > unless it is spiced up
                                  > > > with something which is probably implausible.
                                  > >
                                  > > ...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.
                                  >
                                  > Yes. Romance spelling is largely etymological, and you'd only
                                  > get _f_ for /v/ if you have a /f/ > /v/ rule, which Brithenig
                                  > IMHO doesn't have. (Not that I'd have a clue how _f_ ended up
                                  > representing /v/ in Welsh, though.)
                                  >
                                  > > Implausibility may add spice, but then the thing passes from the
                                  > > altosphere into the artosphere.
                                  >
                                  > Certainly.
                                  >
                                  > > > Neither
                                  > > > is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
                                  > > > one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
                                  > > > aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,
                                  > >
                                  > > Is it? I agree with "learning about language", but is all
                                  > > conlanging about "aesthetic gratification"? Some auxlangers
                                  > > may want a result that is aesthetically pleasing, but I am not
                                  > > convinced that they all do. I'm not certain that aesthetics are
                                  > > a prime concern of engelangers.
                                  >
                                  > Head on. Aesthetic gratification is a goal in many (but not
                                  > all) artlangs; Tolkien's Elvish languages are a case in point.
                                  > It is less of a concern of engelangers (who strive for a more
                                  > rational notion of "elegance"),


                                  But elegance is a form of esthetics.

                                  stevo


                                  > or of auxlangers.
                                  >
                                  > > Aesthetic considerations certainly do not play any part in TAKE; it
                                  > > was just an experiment in trying to produce an "ancient Greek without
                                  > > inflexions." Nor I convinced that way back in the 17th century Dr
                                  > > Outis
                                  > > was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
                                  > > Philippe
                                  > > Labbé was.
                                  >
                                  > Yep.
                                  >
                                  > > Ray.
                                  >
                                  > --
                                  > ... 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
                                  >
                                • Roman Rausch
                                  ... Does it really, though? He himself calls it very different from Elvish, yet organized and expressive, as would be expected of a device of Sauron before
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Feb 22, 2013
                                    >All engelangs I've seen have some sort of 'aesthetic coherence', as does the Black Speech which Tolkien meant to reflect his idea of ugliness

                                    Does it really, though? He himself calls it "very different from Elvish, yet organized and expressive, as would be expected of a device of Sauron before his complete corruption" (PE17:11) which sounds quite positive.
                                    I would say that the negative connotations with the Black Speech in Middle-earth are cultural: It is, after all, the language of the great enemy who wants to destroy and enslave the known world. I also do not find it ugly: Phonetically it's well-balanced, you could do much better if you really wanted to make a language ugly - weird consonant clusters, an excess of a certain sound type, glottal stops in the unlikeliest of places to make you choke - you name it.
                                  • BPJ
                                    ... I couldn t agree more, but look up his description of his intentions with BS -- in Letters I think, which I don t have at hand. My own Sohlob is
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Feb 22, 2013
                                      On 2013-02-22 13:16, Roman Rausch wrote:
                                      >> All engelangs I've seen have some sort of 'aesthetic coherence', as does the Black Speech which Tolkien meant to reflect his idea of ugliness
                                      >
                                      > Does it really, though? He himself calls it "very different from Elvish, yet organized and expressive, as would be expected of a device of Sauron before his complete corruption" (PE17:11) which sounds quite positive.
                                      > I would say that the negative connotations with the Black Speech in Middle-earth are cultural: It is, after all, the language of the great enemy who wants to destroy and enslave the known world. I also do not find it ugly: Phonetically it's well-balanced, you could do much better if you really wanted to make a language ugly - weird consonant clusters, an excess of a certain sound type, glottal stops in the unlikeliest of places to make you choke - you name it.
                                      >

                                      I couldn't agree more, but look up his description of his
                                      intentions with BS -- in "Letters" I think, which I don't
                                      have at hand. My own Sohlob is definitely much more similar
                                      to BS than to the Eldarin languages, yet it has no 'evil'
                                      connotations within its setting at all -- as if a language
                                      could be inherently good or evil, which I don't think
                                      JRRT thought. He made a point of pointing out that Morgoth
                                      was a skilled omniglot too BTW!

                                      /bpj
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.