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

Re: [CONLANG] (Brazilian Portuguese and Rhodrese (was French)

Expand Messages
  • harrisro303
    ... Hey there, i was wondering what is Rhodrese i like the look of this language and was wondering if it was completed or is it being developed?
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:


      Hey there, i was wondering what is Rhodrese i like the look of this
      language and was wondering if it was completed or is it being developed?


      >
      > Edgard escreust:



      >
      > >>> This is so like my conlang Rhodrese were
      > >>>
      > >>> Latin
      > >>>
      > >>> R, -D-, -RR > _r_ /4/
      > >>>
      > >>> RR, DR, D'R N'R > _rr_ /R/
      > >>>
      > >>> L-, L / V__V, -LL' > _l_ /l/
      > >>>
      > >>> L / __(C, #) > _o_ /w/, /U/
      > >>>
      > >>> LJ, GL, G'L, -C'L- > _gl_ /L/
      > >>>
      > >>> LL, L'N, L'R, T'L, D'L > _ll_ /r`_l/ (aka /l\`/ aka /4\`/)
      > >>>
      > >>> Thus:
      > >>>
      > >>> ILLO PEDE > _el pier_ /pjE4/ pl. _il pir_
      > >
      > >
      > > pedem > pede > pere > pe:r > pier
      >
      > pedem > pEdem > pE:de > peEde > piEde > piEre > piEr
      >
      > > pede:s > pere:s > pries? : )
      >
      > pede:s >>>> piEdes > piEdis >> piEri > piiri > pi:r > pir
      >
      > I.e. Rhodrese has Germanic-style umlaut! :-)
      > Actually the fact that all three VLâ€`declensions
      > ended up with a plural in -i was probably more
      > likely due to analogy than to actual sound change
      > of -e:s > -i and -ae > -i, not to mention '-as > -i'
      > and '-os > -i'. The second person present singular
      > of verbs is also formed with i-umlaut, which can be
      > regular only in the fourth conjugation, and possibly
      > in the second conjugation, tho most 2nd conj. verbs
      > went over to the fourth.
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >>> ILLO PATRE > _el piar_ (Old Rh. _paerr_) pl.
      > _il pier_!
      > >>> LAUDARE > _lauriar_ /l@w4'ja4
      > >>>
      > >
      > > reminds me of 'laurear' (portuguese) from laurus, lauru:s.
      >
      > No doubt from the adjective LAEREUS.
      > That would become _leuriar_ in Rh.:
      >
      > laureare >> laurja:re >> leyra:re > l2yra:re >> l2yr&:r >
      > l2yr&@r >> ly:re@r >> lyrjar
      >
      > The O.Rh. spelling would have been _leuraer_, reflecting
      > either the [l2yr&:r] or the [l2yr&@r] stage.
      >
      > In LAUDARE there was no VL /j/ or /i/ and so no umlaut;
      > the a: > &: >>>>> ja change happened only after umlaut had
      > ceased to operate.
      >
      > >
      > >>>
      > >>> ROTUNDU > _rodond_ /RU'dOnt/
      > >
      > >
      > > how is the 'mundus' reflex? mund or mond?
      >
      > _mon_, pl. _men_ (O.Rh. _mond, moend_
      >
      > >>>
      > >>> PETRA > _pierre_ /'pjERI/
      > >>> QUADRAGINTA > _quarrante_
      > >
      > >
      > > your conlang seems to preserve diphthongs well, as
      > lauriar, I guess auru >
      > > aur?; I can only think of romance languages that changed
      > it to [o] or [ou].
      > > Aur is beautiful, btw... So I thought that if the second
      > declension plural
      > > was -ai in proto-Rhodrese ; ), it would go to -e, mixing
      > singular and
      > > plural... but you got the stems from the accusative,
      > so... forget it ; )
      >
      > Actually Rh. preserved only AU, which indeed did
      > become [Ou] in O.Rh. O.Rh. acquired further
      > diphthongs, mainly since after the Latin vowel
      > length distinction was replaced by quality
      > distinctions as described at
      >
      > <http://wiki.frath.net/User:Melroch/Vulgar_Latin>
      >
      > and where Rhodrese follows the 'Corsican' pattern
      > (which in our universe is of doubtful validity)
      > there arose new long vowels through lengthening of
      > stressed vowels in open syllables, of which in
      > Rhodrese all except the high /i:/ and /u:/ (and
      > /y:/) were later (after i-umlaut) diphthongized:
      >
      > Latin Rh. VL Length Umlaut Diphth Old Rh. Mod Rh.
      > ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ---------- -----------
      > i: i i: i: -- _i_ _i_
      > e: e e: e:/i: ei/i: _ei, i_ _ai, i_
      > i(/e( E E: E:/i: iE/i: _ie, i_ _ie, i_
      > a:/a( a &: &:/E: &@/iE _ea, ie_ _ia,ie_
      > u(/o( O O: O:/9: uO/y2 _uo, ue_ _uo, ue_ /2/
      > o: o o: o:/2: ou/2y _ou, eu_ _au, eu_ /y/
      > u u u: u:/y: -- _u, ui_ _u, eu_ /y/
      >
      > There were also some further diphthongs arising
      > from consonantal combinations like RUPTUM > ROPTU
      > > rOutU > _rout_, HABITUM > AB'TU > autu > Out
      > _out_, MAGIS > mEi _mei_, DIGITUM, DEJ'TU > dEid >
      > _deid/deit_. These [ou]/[Ou] and [ei]/[Ei] pairs
      > merged quite early -- possibly before umlaut. Add
      > to this the diphthongs that arose from
      > L-vocalization. AL, OL and U(L merged with AU but
      > are still spelled differently _ao_, I:L was
      > spelled _io_ in Middle Rh. but merged with /y/ and
      > is spelled _eu_ in Mod.Rh. EL and I(L finally are
      > still distinct /Ew/ and spelled _eo_. This is the
      > main reason _au_ and _ao_ are still spelled
      > differently: the umlaut of _au_ is _eu_ /y/ but
      > the umlaut of _ao_ is _eo_ /Ew/.
      >
      > >>> PONERE HABET > _porrat_ /pU'Rat/
      > >
      > >
      > > 'he must put'?
      >
      > 's/he will put' That is the Romance synthetic
      > future as CANTARE HABET > CANTARE HAT > _cantar há_
      > > _cantará_ (to exemplify with Portuguese).
      >
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >>>
      > >>> ILLU BELLU > _el bel_
      > >>> ILLA STELLA > _l'estelle_
      > >>> ILLO MALO > _el mao_
      > >>> ILLA MALA > _la male_
      > >
      > >
      > > 'mae' is that illegal?
      >
      > Unlike Portuguese Rhodrese doesn't lose
      > intervocalic L and N, but in some dialects
      > L vocalizalization did go further so there
      > you will find _maoe_ /'mawI/ and _estele_
      > /I'stElI/ instead of the standard forms
      > /'malI/ and /I'stEr`I/ (in the Rhodrese
      > dialects' heartland south of Lojú).
      >
      > >>>
      > >>> ILLO STAB'LU > _ell estabo_
      > >>> ILLI OC'LI > _igl egl_
      > >
      > >
      > > hard to say! the singular is... el ogl... de la aquile?
      >
      > Yes _el ogl_, the word is OCULUS 'eye'.
      >
      > >>>
      > >>> ILLO FILIOLU > _el figláo_ pl. _il figléo_
      > >>> ILLA FIL[j]INA > _la figline_ pl. _il figlí_
      > >>> ILLO FILIO > _el fegl_ pl. _il figl_
      > "child(ren)"
      > >>> (Old Rh. _el figl, il figl_)
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > > Is there an excerpt with the vulgar latin to compare? I
      > like it.
      >
      > I should really make one. I have the Vulgate Xmas gospel
      > lying around, which would be a suitable text, or
      > the Tower of Babel, if I can find the Vulgate
      > version (which I could).
      >
      > /BP
      >
      > The Stuttgart Vulgate text from
      >
      > <http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=1&c=11>
      >
      > is below. I'll try to find time to work on a
      > translation into Rhodrese.
      >
      > 11.1 erat autem terra labii unius et sermonum eorundem
      >
      > 11.1 And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.
      >
      > 11.2 cumque proficiscerentur de oriente invenerunt campum in
      > terra Sennaar et habitaverunt in eo
      >
      > 11.2 And when they removed from the east, they found a plain
      > in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.
      >
      > 11.3 dixitque alter ad proximum suum venite faciamus lateres
      > et coquamus eos igni habueruntque lateres pro saxis et
      > bitumen pro cemento
      >
      > 11.3 And each one said to his neighbour: Come let us make
      > brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead
      > of stones, and slime instead of mortar:
      >
      > 11.4 et dixerunt venite faciamus nobis civitatem et turrem
      > cuius culmen pertingat ad caelum et celebremus nomen nostrum
      > antequam dividamur in universas terras
      >
      > 11.4 And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower,
      > the top whereof may reach to heaven; and let us make our
      > name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.
      >
      > 11.5 descendit autem Dominus ut videret civitatem et turrem
      > quam aedificabant filii Adam
      >
      > 11.5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower,
      > which the children of Adam were building.
      >
      > 11.6 et dixit ecce unus est populus et unum labium omnibus
      > coeperuntque hoc facere nec desistent a cogitationibus suis
      > donec eas opere conpleant
      >
      > 11.6 And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one
      > tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they
      > leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.
      >
      > 11.7 venite igitur descendamus et confundamus ibi linguam
      > eorum ut non audiat unusquisque vocem proximi sui
      >
      > 11.7 Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound
      > their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.
      >
      > 11.8 atque ita divisit eos Dominus ex illo loco in universas
      > terras et cessaverunt aedificare civitatem
      >
      > 11.8 And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all
      > lands, and they ceased to build the city.
      >
      > 11.9 et idcirco vocatum est nomen eius Babel quia ibi
      > confusum est labium universae terrae et inde dispersit eos
      > Dominus super faciem cunctarum regionum
      >
      > 11.9 And therefore the name thereof was called Babel,
      > because there the language of the whole earth was
      > confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad
      > upon the face of all countries.
      >
    • Benct Philip Jonsson
      ... It is beingdeveloped, and as I like it a lot it will probably be perpetually under development. IMNSHO a completed conlang is a dead conlang! I m ATM
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On 2009-02-03 harrisro303 wrote:
        > Hey there, i was wondering what is Rhodrese i like the
        > look of this
        > language and was wondering if it was completed or is it
        > being developed?
        >

        It is beingdeveloped, and as I like it a lot it will
        probably be perpetually under development. IMNSHO a
        'completed' conlang is a dead conlang!

        I'm ATM working on some texts and more structured grammar
        bits and will upload them as soon as they are -- not
        finished but rounded off!

        /BP 8^)>
        --
        Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
        à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
        ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
        c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.