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

De-palatisation in Northern Romance (WAS: Northern Romance chronology and phonology)

Expand Messages
  • Peter Collier
    This has been knocked back and forth a few times, and split amongst various mails, so I m going to bring it all back together and summarise here in a table, to
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      This has been knocked back and forth a few times, and split amongst various
      mails, so I'm going to bring it all back together and summarise here in a
      table, to see if we're now both/all singing from the same hymn sheet.


      CL WRom / GRom NRom


      pj ( tS ) ^1 pj > pp
      tj ts T
      ( #s )? ^2
      kj ki ke ts tsi tse T Ti Te
      ( #s #si #se )? ^2
      nk nts nT

      bj ( dZ ) ^1 bj > bb
      #dj #dZ #D ^3
      dj 0 0
      gj gi ge dZ dZi dZe D Di De ^3
      #ga #dZa #Da ^3

      sj z s ^4

      mj ( m; ndZ ) ^1 mj > mm
      nj J nj >
      nn
      gn J nj >
      nn

      rj r r
      lj L lj >
      ll
      #j #dZ #D ^3


      ^1 WRom palatisation after NRom divergence
      ^2 Possible differentiation between initial and intervocalic
      positions?
      ^3 NRom /D/ from earlier /d/
      ^4 [s_a]


      The following de-palatisations were also suggested, but I've not found any
      examples of the corresponding palatisations arisng in WRom / GRom, so they
      are moot:

      -- tS t
      -- S x
      -- Z j



      Alles klar?

      -Pete
    • Peter Collier
      ... From: Peter Collier To: Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:47 PM Subject: [romconlang]
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Peter Collier" <petecollier@...>
        To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:47 PM
        Subject: [romconlang] De-palatisation in Northern Romance (WAS: Northern
        Romance chronology and phonology)


        > This has been knocked back and forth a few times, and split amongst
        > various
        > mails, so I'm going to bring it all back together and summarise here in a
        > table, to see if we're now both/all singing from the same hymn sheet.

        [...]

        A late addition.

        The advantage to very young children, is they don't speak perfectly.
        Listening to my lad this morning talking about our next door neighbour Julie
        ( /dZu:li:/ ), I noticed he consistently pronounces her name 'Droolie' (
        /dru::li:/ ). Thinking about that, it struck me that /dr/ is a valid
        cluster and a much closer approximation to /dZ/ than /d/. Perhaps that would
        be a better shift? Would it still be as good given that /d/ = /D/ in Gmc, so
        you'd actually end up with /Dr/ ? The fricativeness does make it a less
        effective imitation, to my ears.


        PMC
      • Peter Collier
        Well, here they are (most of them, anyway). - Pete Northern Romance definite article Masc Sing Masc Plur Fem Sing Fem Plur Nom
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, here they are (most of them, anyway).

          - Pete


          Northern Romance definite article



          Masc Sing Masc Plur Fem Sing Fem Plur

          Nom elle illi ella elle

          /e:llE/ /i:llI/ /e:llA/ /e:llE/

          Acc ellu ellos ella ellas

          /e:llU/ /e:llOs/ /e:llA/ /e:llAs/

          Gen elluius elloru ellaius elloru

          /e:llu:jUs/ /e:llOrU/ /e:llAjUs/ /e:llOrU/

          Dat ellui elles ellei illis

          /e:llu:I/ /e:llEs/ /e:lle:I/ /i:llIs/



          Approximate modern ‘High Germanican’ forms



          Masc Sing Masc Plur Fem Sing Fem Plur

          Nom-Acc le los la las

          Gen leus lore lähus (> läs ?) lore

          Dat lau les lei lis







          Northern Romance indefinite article / number “one”



          Masc Fem

          Nom onus un

          /OnUs/ /Un/

          Acc onu un

          /OnU/ /Un/

          Gen unuius unaius

          /Unu:jUs/ /UnAjUs/

          Dat unui unei

          /Unu:I/ /Une:I/



          Approximate modern ‘High Germanican’ forms



          Masc Fem

          Nom-Acc onns (> unns ?) unn

          Gen unneus unnähus (> unnäs ?)

          Dat unnau unnei







          Northern Romance nominative pronouns



          1st person 2nd person 3rd person m. 3rd person f.

          Singular d[h]o tu elle ella

          /DO/ > /dO/ /tu:/ /e:llE/ /e:llA/

          Plural nos uos ellos ellas

          /nOs/ /wOs/ /e:llOs/ /e:llAs/



          Approximate modern ‘High Germanican’ forms



          1st person 2nd person 3rd person m. 3rd person f.

          Singular to zau iel ella

          Plural noss oß iels ellas







          Northern Romance accusative pronouns



          1st person 2nd person 3rd person m. 3rd person f.

          Singular me te se se

          /me:/ /te:/ /se:/ /se:/

          Plural nos uos se se

          /nOs/ /wOs/ /se:/ /se:/



          Approximate modern ‘High Germanican’ forms



          1st person 2nd person 3rd person m. 3rd person f.

          Singular mie zie sie sie

          Plural noss oß sie sie







          Northern Romance genitive/possessive pronouns (the separate declensions having merged)



          1st person m./f. 2nd person m./f. 3rd person m./f.

          Singular mis ma tus ta sus sa

          /mIs/ /mA/ /tUs/ /tA/ /sUs/ /sA/

          Plural nostri uestre elloru

          /nOstrI/ /wEstre/ /e:llOrU/



          Approximate modern ‘High Germanican’ forms



          1st person m./f. 2nd person m./f. 3rd person m./f.

          Singular miss ma zuss za suss sa

          Plural noster oster ieler







          Northern Romance dative pronouns



          1st person 2nd person 3rd person m. 3rd person f.

          Singular mi ti si si

          /mi:/ /ti:/ /si:/ /si:/

          Plural nobes uobes si si

          /no:BEs/ /wo:BEs/ /si:/ /si:/



          Approximate modern ‘High Germanican’ forms



          1st person 2nd person 3rd person m. 3rd person f.

          Singular mei zei sei sei

          Plural nubs (> nobs ?) obs sei sei






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Benct Philip Jonsson
          Sorry for late reply. I ve composing this over several days between Real Life duties. I hope all inconsistencies can be written down to that... ... Nja in
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 6, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry for late reply. I've composing this over several days
            between Real Life duties. I hope all inconsistencies can be
            written down to that...

            --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Collier"
            <petecollier@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benct Philip Jonsson"
            > <bpj@...> To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com> Sent:
            > Wednesday, January 30, 2008 6:22 PM Subject: [romconlang]
            > Northern Romance chronology and phonology
            >
            >
            > > ## Date of the Gallo-Romance/Northern Romance POD.
            > >
            > > (I'm posting this also to <blog.melroch.se>)
            > >
            > > IMHO the 2nd century is too late a date for the GRmc.-
            > > NRmc. divergence. It is important to remember that two
            > > dialect areas which remain in contact with each other
            > > don't break, but rather slide apart. Moreover I think we
            > > want Germanic phonology to have an influence from the
            > > outset, since that's rather the idea with a substrate:
            > > when a language spreads into an area where it wasn't
            > > spoken before the first generation will speak it with a
            > > broken accent, part of which will transfer to the native
            > > accent of the second and third generations. Also there
            > > is no need to assume that all Gallican innovations
            > > during the first century spread into Germania.
            >
            > 'Jein' as the Germans say.

            "Nja" in Swedish. WTH could it be in English? "Sorta"?

            >
            > The first of the two stages of sound changes are not
            > intended to be strictly diachronic, rather they are a set
            > of changes that attempt to shift the CL lexicon - which we
            > have - to something approximating VL - which, on the
            > whole, we do not. To that extent at least the changes are
            > 'instantaneous' at the start of the time period indicated,
            > i.e. around about the beginning of the Common Era.
            >
            > As you mentioned, we are not dealling with a sudden break
            > and change of direction, but a gradual growing apart of
            > two dialects. For that reason (and a few later sound
            > changes I slipped in under the mat) I extended this
            > initial period out to 200 CE. In doing this, I also was
            > mindful of a couple of points:
            > - The date of the conquest of Germania, which was as
            > 'recently' as 57 BCE cis-rhine, and 9 CE trans-
            > rhine. So even with a date as late as 200 CE, that
            > only leaves space for 6 generations or so.
            > - Initially, the only Latin speakers are going to be
            > the Roman invaders. Until the Roman presence moves
            > beyond invasion/occupation to actual colonisation,
            > the language is not going to 'break out' and spread
            > among the aboriginal inhabitants of the area through
            > trade, fraternisation, cultural assimilation etc.
            > - 200 CE in my mind marked an arbitrary point by which
            > the two dialects (WRom / NRom) have become
            > unintelligble to some degree or other following a
            > couple of centuries of development, not the point at
            > which this process begins to take place. The 200 -
            > 500 CE timeframe is then the period during which a
            > now fully separate NRom continues to develop. There
            > is a cut off at 500 CE, which is the point some of
            > the AHD changes begin to take place that will
            > ultimately split NRom into two groups.
            >
            > So to that extent, I think I would disagree about the date
            > being too late. IF we cannot fire the starting pistol for
            > a Roman Germania until early in the 1st century, then if
            > we start bringing the 200 CE date forward we are going to
            > end up with an unlikely situation of grandparents not
            > understanding their grandchildren. I don't believe sound
            > change can be quite so rapid.

            Actually language shift may well be a 3 generation affair:
            the first generation have the old language as L1 and know
            only a little of the new language, the second generation is
            truly bilingual, while the third generation have the new
            language as L1 and may have only passive or only very weak
            active knowledge of the old language.

            Also remember that generations were quicker in old times
            than now: you have to count on 5 or even 6 generations per
            century, since people became parents earlier in 'primitive'
            societies. Even now there are more often four generations to
            a century; my lad is exactly 99 years younger than my
            grandmother (albeit both she and my father were dead when my
            lad was born): she was 34 when she got my father and he was
            33 when he got me, and I was 32 when I became a father, but
            we could easily have been each ten year younger, in which
            case my lad would have been only 69 years younger than his
            great-granny. So in that way you get at least ten
            generations between 57 BCE and 200 CE -- more than ample
            time for a language shift. By comparison Gaulish seems to
            have died out in only about a century. At least inscriptions
            dry up around 50 CE. There may be a difference in the fact
            that *all* of Gaul but not all of Germania was conquered, so
            let's say that the first monolingual N.Rmc. speakers
            appeared around 1 CE, and that Germania Romana was
            essentially all monolingual VL, with its distinctive dialect
            a century later, at 150 CE. The Marcomannian war may have
            been the turning point, when people's allegiances finally
            shifted, since it may have been a two-front war with a
            western and southern front in MGR, and may well have ended
            in Marcomannia being conquered. It is also worth remembering
            how swiftly the Scottish Highlands were Anglicized -- it
            began in 1745 and by 1875 Gaelic was essentially only spoken
            by scattered fishermen on outlying islands

            (see <http://tinyurl.com/2xa2sy>, and the table of
            statistics at <http://tinyurl.com/3972rr>!)

            > It is perhaps instead my labelling of the two periods
            > that needs adjusting. Perhaps if you think of stage one
            > as being Pan-Roman changes attested by 1 CE, with stage
            > 2 being the changes that separate W- and N Rom between 1
            > and 500 CE. 200 CE would still seem a reasonable date
            > for drawing a line between West and North, but this date
            > now becomes an indeterminate point sometime during the
            > 2nd stage.
            >
            > Where I do agree though, is that the Gmc phonology needs
            > to have more of an effect from earlier, so perhaps we need
            > to look at moving some of those features back in time
            > slightly.
            >

            Yes, that seems reasonable, though it is impossible to know
            how early/late e.g. palatalization was, although I think 1
            CE isn't impossibly early by any description; let's draw the
            end for 'stage 1' at 50 CE to be conservative, and the
            beginnings of 'stage 2' at 9 CE -- which is conservative for
            the areas conquered already half a century earlier. The
            slight overlap is only realistic, since Pan-VL developments
            would continue to affect Germania even after she began to
            develop her own dialect.

            > > So we have some 'Germanican'[^Germanican] innovations
            > > right from the outset and some Gallican innovations
            > > which do reach Germania as well as some which don't. To
            > > a degree this means that we can pick and choose, but in
            > > so doing we should keep an eye on what was universal VL,
            > > what was only Western Romance and what was only
            > > Gallican.
            >
            > I think we could sum the adoption of sound changes up as:
            >
            > VL changes: all WRom changes: most GRom: some
            >
            > Germanican sounds a good way to distinguish the conlang
            > group from OTL Germanic. I also try to remember to refer
            > to (OTL-)Gmc as 'teutonic', but I do so hate the word...

            Agreed. Also -1st century Romans, unlike 18th century
            English, could tell Teutoni and other Germani apart!

            I OTOH prefer "Germano-Romance" to "Northern Romance",
            if only because "Northern Romance" in IB is essentially
            Slavo-Romance!

            >
            > > Also the Germanic substrate would not be common Germanic
            > > anymore, but Early West Germanic. Some changes like
            > > rhotacism, the loss of -z and gemination before *j may
            > > probably be under way already. Which means that Latin
            > > [z] from simple /s/ between vowels will probably be
            > > equated with substrate voiceless [s] as
            > > Scandinavians do to this day.
            >
            > Yes. I have assumed /z/ has already been lost by the time
            > the Romans arrive, so I have /z/ > /s/ accordingly. I have
            > the C/j/ gemination late in stage 2, perhaps this is one
            > of the features that needs to be brought forwards.

            I don't think so, but such Gallo-Romance changes as PJ, BJ,
            MJ > tS, dZ, mdZ need not be assumed to have been early, or
            shared by Germano-Romance -- after all there is AFAIK no
            evidence of it in documents antedating the 12th century, so
            I think it's safe to assume it had not yet happened by 200
            CE. (Interestingly py > tS and by > dZ happened in Tibetan
            too, although there my > ñ.)

            The terminus ante quem for yod gemination in OTL W.Gmc.
            is the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain, as Old English
            shares it -- although there is no need to assume that
            contact between Continental and Insular Saxons was cut
            off immediately. In fact we know that contact between
            England and the Low Countries or Friesland was *never*
            cut off, except that the vikings probably made navigation
            dangerous at times.

            > [...]
            >
            >
            > > So we can be quite assured that at some time OTL Western
            > > Romance had the following sibilant system:
            > >
            > > | ts_m s_a (tS) S
            > > | dz_m z_a dZ (Z)
            > >
            > > where the parenthesized items were either rare or
            > > lacking in some areas.
            > >
            > > Comparing this to the pre-West Germanic fricatives
            > > system I'd not be the least surprised if Germans
            > > learning Gallo- Romance would equate the foreign [ts_m]
            > > with their [T], especially if there wasn't yet any /ts/
            > > in their Germanic language. The biggest problem to me is
            > > what they'd make of [S]. There was perhaps no x to
            > > equate it with any more, since Old High German
            > > consistently keeps /h/ from Germanic *x and /x/ from
            > > Germanic *k distinct, in which case I'd have [S] merge
            > > with /s_a/ in substratization. OTOH with a time of
            > > contact as early as the first century I'd slate [S] to
            > > be equated with *x and then develop to a /h/ distinct
            > > from the lost Latin *h.
            >
            > At the moment I don't seem to have /S/ arising from
            > anywhere, but I'm still reading up on the palatisations
            > so it may yet appear. If it does, I think WRom /S/ > NRom
            > /x/ is best - especially as /x/ is an important Gmc
            > phoneme that will otherwise disappear (?). As to /h/, AHD
            > is still 500 - 800 years away at this point - worry about
            > that later!

            Wouldn't you get /S/ from SSJ as in CASSIUS, MISSIO, and
            also from SJ in BASIUM, VISIO, since [Z] > [S] in the
            Germanicization? Assuming, as feels likely somehow, that
            Germanic root-stress was at least partially retrofitted to
            Latin you'd get _Kah, miho > Miehe_ (acc. _mihon > Miehen_)
            _wâh > Wah/Woh, wîho > Weihe_ (acc. _wîhon > Weihen_).
            (Somehow I'd prefer BASIOLUM > _wahol > Wahl_ to _Wah_
            though.) Of course you'd get _-do > de, -don > -den_ from
            -TIONE (NATIO(NE) > _nâdo(n) > Nade/Node, Naden/Noden).
            Come to think of it the -en form might well spread to the
            nominative (cf. the NHG infinitive in -en! :-)

            > > I wonder how Romance lengthening of vowels in stressed
            > > open syllables -- in Iberian of all stressed vowels --
            > > and subsequent diphthongization would affect Northern
            > > Romance. The rising diphthongization of low mid [E:] and
            > > [O:] to /ie/ and /uo/ or similar is well nigh universal
            > > in Romance, but Old French also had high mid [e:] and
            > > [o:] become /ei/ and /ou/. Since OHG had both types of
            > > diphthong it is tempting to copy the Old French pattern
            > > in Northern Romance. OTOH Germanic had a very different
            > > vowel system from the VL one, so that it seems moot
            > > whether Northern Romance would preserve the distinction
            > > between two heights of mid vowels or merge them in the
            > > first place.
            >
            > A very important point that needs considering. Waterman
            > ('A History of the German Language') even suggests some of
            > the AHD diphthongs may hve come about through close
            > contact with GRom/Old N French.

            Interesting idea! It presupposes that *lots* of Franks were
            bilingual -- which probably was the case, however.

            > It seems in any case a feature that is very likely to be
            > present in NRom.

            Yes, but that leaves open (stressed) syllable lenthening
            (phew, let's call it OSL) both a necessity and the only
            likely source of _î û â_.

            > Matching the vowels systems is difficult, but important
            > because of the role vowel length plays later in the
            > development of the language. Somehow, length distinctions
            > need to remain, or be reintroduced. At the moment I'm
            > working on the following basis:
            >
            > VL lost vowel length distinction but this was replaced by
            > tenseness as formerly short vowels became more open. WGmc
            > retained vowel length. So: NRom inherits the tenseness
            > distinction, which moves back towards a length
            > distinction under the substratic influence of Germanic.
            > So we end up with a system of short open vowels and
            > closed long vowels -
            >
            >| i: u:
            >| I U
            >| e: o:
            >| E O
            >| a

            There are two problems with this:
            1. Germanic had no /o:/, only an /O:/, and originally no
            /a:/, so ROMANI became _Rumoneis_ /ru:mo:ni:s/ in Gothic.
            In non-East Germanic the /&:/ < PIE *e: became /a:/ while
            a new /e:/ was developed, mainly from PIE *e:i, but with
            the back vowels you'd be out of luck.
            2. Since *I > e, *U > o and a: > a in the Western Romance 7
            vowel qualities system you would end up with a system
            which distinguishes length only in the mid vowels, which
            is a bit unrealistic. That's why it is better to assume
            the W.Rom. 7 vowel qualities system followed by the type
            of vowel lengthening in open syllables attested in Gallo-
            and Italo-Romance, which allows you to in the end (i.e.
            around 800 CE) have a vowel system quite like the one
            attested for OHG:

            | i: u:
            | I U
            | E O
            | a a:
            |
            | ei < e: ou < o:
            | ie/ia < E: uo/ua < O:

            You will still have no iu, though you will have an eu later
            from umlauted ou. Mind you that VL only preserved the single
            diphthong au, while OHG had lots of ei! You would still get
            cases of long vowels before consonant clusters if
            lengthening was prior to syncope, so dat you get e.g.
            - DOMINUS > *'dO:menus > *dO:mnus > duomn((e)s)
            - NO:MINIS > *'no:menes > *no:mnes > noumn((e)s)
            - CAPUT > *ca:pot > ca:pt > châft
            - LEGIT > *lE:jet > leit

            (Yes, I think t# should be preserved; the third person
            singular becomes so-o much more Deutsch that way! :-)

            Another possible redress is to assume that the W.Rmc. 7
            quality system gets Germanicized so that /e/ and /o/ are
            interpreted as /I/ and /U/, but you would anyway not get
            any diphthongs or /a:/ that way. Another snag is that the
            OHG long-short pairs were just that, i.e. /i(/ and /u(/
            hadn't yet become lax [I] and [U] but were just short [i]
            and [u]. (That may be hard to believe for a speaker of
            modern English, but it is the case e.g. in my own dialect
            of Swedish.)

            Petrus iterum:

            > A late addition.
            >
            > The advantage to very young children, is they don't speak
            > perfectly.

            Sound changes start with that, of course. I remember my lad
            at 7 y.o. asking how come _mord_ 'murder' and _mod_
            'courage' sound the same -- or as he put it: how the same
            word could mean both 'to kill' and 'to not be afraid'!

            > Listening to my lad this morning talking about our next
            > door neighbour Julie ( /dZu:li:/ ), I noticed he
            > consistently pronounces her name 'Droolie' ( /dru::li:/ ).
            > Thinking about that, it struck me that /dr/ is a valid
            > cluster and a much closer approximation to /dZ/ than /d/.
            > Perhaps that would be a better shift? Would it still be as
            > good given that /d/ = /D/ in Gmc, so you'd actually end up
            > with /Dr/ ? The fricativeness does make it a less
            > effective imitation, to my ears.

            That's *evil* in the Tristan sense, but I like it! However
            we should be aware that in the first century CE the
            palatoalveolar stage was probably not reached yet: what was
            probably still allophones of /k/ and /g/ were both still
            pure palatals [c] and [J\]. That [c] merged with [t;] /tj/
            while [J\] went on to become /dZ/ in the second millennium
            is a strange accident. I think that [J\] would more readily
            become /j/, or remain /g/, in Germano-Romance. It is notable
            that /k/ and /g/ before front vowels generally are [c] and
            [J\] even in modern Germanic languages. IMHO the operative
            thing for making CISTA > _thista > diste_ a possible
            development is the [c] > /tj/ [t;] merger, and no
            corresponding merger is attested on the voiced side. There
            is also the question if we want GERMANIA to become
            _Drermanna > Drermane_ rather than _Germanna/Jermanna >
            Germane/Jermane_ -- although we may assume that /drer/
            simplified to /der/ or /dre/ in that particular word.

            As for the palatalization before /a/ (or rather /&/) it was
            rather much later -- that's why it has another outcome in KA
            > /tSa/ --, and didn't even apply in all of Gallo-Romance;
            we can safely assume it didn't happen in Germano-Romance.

            I wonder what Julies mom thinks about your lad calling her
            daughter Droolie though! :-)

            On the same note Swedish kids often have persistent problems
            with sorting out /s/, /s\/ (similar to [C]) and /s`/
            (similar to [S]), usually with /s\/ and sometimes also /s`/
            becoming [s].

            Another thing: you said once you don't like _pf_; if it's
            the *spelling* which is the problem I saw a scholar spelled
            _Pheiffer_ in the library catalog the other day, and indeed
            a check in Keller showed _ph_ for the shifted *p occurred
            with some frequency in OHG and MHG -- and even _kh_ /kx/
            distinguished from _ch_ /x/, though I kinda like _ch_ /kx/
            and _hh_ /x/ better (e.g. _hlahhan_ 'laugh').

            --
            / BP
          • Peter Collier
            ... From: Benct Philip Jonsson To: Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [romconlang]
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 6, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Benct Philip Jonsson" <bpj@...>
              To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:45 PM
              Subject: Re: [romconlang] Northern Romance chronology and phonology


              > Sorry for late reply. I've composing this over several days
              > between Real Life duties. I hope all inconsistencies can be
              > written down to that...

              Once more I find myeself torn, BP, between awe at your phillological
              near-omniscience, and despair as yet again I find myself reconsidering
              linguistic points I thought I had firmly pinned down....

              Trying to sort even the bare bones of this language is like trying to herd
              cats.

              P
            • Peter Collier
              ... From: Peter Collier To: Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [romconlang]
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 6, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Peter Collier" <petecollier@...>
                To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:36 PM
                Subject: Re: [romconlang] Northern Romance chronology and phonology


                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "Benct Philip Jonsson" <bpj@...>
                > To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:45 PM
                > Subject: Re: [romconlang] Northern Romance chronology and phonology
                >
                >
                >> Sorry for late reply. I've composing this over several days
                >> between Real Life duties. I hope all inconsistencies can be
                >> written down to that...
                >
                > Once more I find myeself torn, BP, between awe at your phillological
                > near-omniscience, and despair as yet again I find myself reconsidering
                > linguistic points I thought I had firmly pinned down....
                >
                > Trying to sort even the bare bones of this language is like trying to herd
                > cats.
                >
                > P



                That was not a complaint by the way. Far from it! :) P
              • Benct Philip Jonsson
                I sure hope I haven t achieved even near philological omniscience. For one thing the leading passion of my life would be spent already in mid-life, and for the
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 7, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  I sure hope I haven't achieved even near philological omniscience. For
                  one thing the leading passion of my life would be spent already in
                  mid-life, and for the other I know best how many books I've read only
                  cursorily or not at all --- I do hope they were not written in vain!

                  I'm sure I can come across as a nitpicky bore --- or even boor I'm
                  afraid. I have no right, of course to hold others playing the game to
                  the same rules of perhaps excessive naturalism as I hold myself to. To
                  me the laws of linguistic universals and phonetic plausibility in a
                  sense *are* the rules of the game of altlanging, and perhaps the point
                  of the game to me is to explore the limits of those laws in a way that
                  mere observation of their operation in real life cannot afford. I once
                  said that I wouldn't accept a hypothetical prehistoric linguistic
                  change which didn't have an attested parallel in the known history of
                  some language, but as a rule for artistic development that might well
                  be too limiting.

                  To other artlangers aesthetic expression, be it euphony or cacophony,
                  is the only principle, and that is of course their prerogative. What
                  to me is plain dadaism or even stale formalism may to its creator be
                  the height of whatever they are out to express, and if so more power
                  to them of course!

                  When people develop a game together they must of course all have a say
                  over the rules, and it is natural that at times there is disagreement.
                  As soccer developed they came to the realization that it was a good
                  idea not to have trees and bushes growing on the field, but some found
                  the no hands rule too restrictive, and so rugby parted company. If my
                  rules don't fit your lang you should by all means say so!

                  2008/2/6, Peter Collier <petecollier@...>:
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "Benct Philip Jonsson" <bpj@...>
                  > To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:45 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [romconlang] Northern Romance chronology and phonology
                  >
                  >
                  > > Sorry for late reply. I've composing this over several days
                  > > between Real Life duties. I hope all inconsistencies can be
                  > > written down to that...
                  >
                  > Once more I find myeself torn, BP, between awe at your phillological
                  > near-omniscience, and despair as yet again I find myself reconsidering
                  > linguistic points I thought I had firmly pinned down....
                  >
                  > Trying to sort even the bare bones of this language is like trying to herd
                  > cats.
                  >
                  > P
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
                  > romconlang-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  --
                  / BP
                • Peter Collier
                  ... From: Benct Philip Jonsson To: Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [romconlang] Northern
                  Message 8 of 11 , Feb 9, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Benct Philip Jonsson" <bpj@...>
                    To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:35 AM
                    Subject: Re: [romconlang] Northern Romance chronology and phonology


                    >I sure hope I haven't achieved even near philological omniscience. For
                    > one thing the leading passion of my life would be spent already in
                    > mid-life,


                    mid-life? pessimist!


                    and for the other I know best how many books I've read only
                    > cursorily or not at all --- I do hope they were not written in vain!
                    >
                    > I'm sure I can come across as a nitpicky bore --- or even boor I'm
                    > afraid. I have no right, of course to hold others playing the game to
                    > the same rules of perhaps excessive naturalism as I hold myself to.


                    Nitpicky-ish, maybe. But not boring.


                    > To me the laws of linguistic universals and phonetic plausibility in a
                    > sense *are* the rules of the game of altlanging, and perhaps the point
                    > of the game to me is to explore the limits of those laws in a way that
                    > mere observation of their operation in real life cannot afford. I once
                    > said that I wouldn't accept a hypothetical prehistoric linguistic
                    > change which didn't have an attested parallel in the known history of
                    > some language, but as a rule for artistic development that might well
                    > be too limiting.


                    Yes. I'm playing around with this because I want a reasonably plausible
                    answer to the question "What might 'German' look like if it was a romance
                    tongue?" If I just wanted a German-like romance language I'm sure I could
                    rattle something off pretty quickly, but that's not the point.


                    > To other artlangers aesthetic expression, be it euphony or cacophony,
                    > is the only principle, and that is of course their prerogative. What
                    > to me is plain dadaism or even stale formalism may to its creator be
                    > the height of whatever they are out to express, and if so more power
                    > to them of course!


                    Starting to sound like a text book again there... ;)


                    > When people develop a game together they must of course all have a say
                    > over the rules, and it is natural that at times there is disagreement.
                    > As soccer developed they came to the realization that it was a good
                    > idea not to have trees and bushes growing on the field, but some found
                    > the no hands rule too restrictive, and so rugby parted company. If my
                    > rules don't fit your lang you should by all means say so!


                    Oh I will. However, I also look at it from the point of view of willingly
                    surrendering some control, in order to benefit from your greater linguistic
                    knowledge. Symbiosis, I suppose.


                    - The Cat Herder.
                  • Peter Collier
                    ... From: Benct Philip Jonsson To: Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [romconlang]
                    Message 9 of 11 , Feb 22, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Benct Philip Jonsson" <bpj@...>
                      To: <romconlang@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:45 PM
                      Subject: Re: [romconlang] Northern Romance chronology and phonology


                      >> > I wonder how Romance lengthening of vowels in stressed
                      >> > open syllables -- in Iberian of all stressed vowels --
                      >> > and subsequent diphthongization would affect Northern
                      >> > Romance. The rising diphthongization of low mid [E:] and
                      >> > [O:] to /ie/ and /uo/ or similar is well nigh universal
                      >> > in Romance, but Old French also had high mid [e:] and
                      >> > [o:] become /ei/ and /ou/. Since OHG had both types of
                      >> > diphthong it is tempting to copy the Old French pattern
                      >> > in Northern Romance. OTOH Germanic had a very different
                      >> > vowel system from the VL one, so that it seems moot
                      >> > whether Northern Romance would preserve the distinction
                      >> > between two heights of mid vowels or merge them in the
                      >> > first place.


                      I've been looking at vowels again. I'm not sure if the following is the
                      right way to go, although I do think this is better than my first idea.

                      Our Pre-Roman Germnaicans have the following vowels:

                      i i: u u:
                      e e:
                      O:
                      {:
                      a

                      The /{:/ is dropping towards /a:/.

                      The invading Romans have thir new 7-vowel sytem:

                      i u
                      e o
                      E O
                      a

                      We can merge these two systems by having the Germanicans interpret /o/ as
                      /u/ (c.f. Gothic <Rumoneis>) and /E/ as /{/. With this /{/ moving to /a/, we
                      will ultimately end up with the following vowel system:

                      i u
                      e
                      O
                      a (a:)*

                      *The length distinction of /a:/ from /{:/ might be kept, as the Germanicans
                      did distinguish length, otherwise both would merge to /a/.

                      The correspondence between this system and the CL vowels would therefore be:

                      /i/ < long I
                      /u/ < long V, short V, long O
                      /e/ < long E, short I, OE
                      /O/ < short O
                      /a/ < long, A, short A (+? short E, AE)
                      (/a:/ < short E, AE)


                      This system would mean that you would lose the chance to have the rising
                      diphthongisation of low /E/, although it may be possible still for /O/.
                      While I sit here pondering that and the possible effects of this vowel
                      system, I'm thinking about PEDE, as PEDE > PIED (French) is the first
                      example that comes to mind. If we did have /E/ > /{/ > /a/, then we would
                      end up with the Germanican word for 'foot' being *Pfad! Is it merely
                      coincidence that the ATL word for 'foot' is the OTL word for 'path'/'track',
                      or a sign that't I'm on the right track (no pun intended)!?


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