Hallo conlangers!

On 29.07.2015 17:22, R A Brown wrote:

> On 29/07/2015 15:18, BPJ wrote:
>> The problem with Romlang morphology is that if you want
>> to stay plausible it's pretty much dictated in advance
>> by what the romlang natlangs offer. You can mess it up to
>> a degree with sound changes,
>
> Of course  :)
>
> But even within the 'standard' Romance forms, there's quite
> a bit of variation - particularly with verbs.  Cf. tables to
> be found here:
> http://www.nativlang.com/romance-languages/?e=0,6

Yes; the Romance languages are not "all the same".

>> keep a direct—oblique case distinction like old
>> Gallo-Romance,
>
> Probably survived until early Middle Britainese - but
> subsequently lost as in other western Romance langs.
>
>> form the analytic perfect with TENERE like Luso-Romance
>
> Far too way out   ;)

Indeed.  If it is only found in Portuguese and Galician, it is unlikely 
to crop up in Britainese.

> But _possibly_ (i.e. not yet 'discovered') as modern English
> & Spanish only use "have" auxiliary and not "be" also to
> form perfect tense.

That would make sense for British Romance.

>> or an analytic future with VENIRE like some Gallo-Italian
>> and Rhaeto-Romance varieties,
>
> Nah - no basis for that from the insular langs in our
> timeline.  "go" with infinitive for a near future will
> probably be there - but I'm sure I'll find a synthetic
> future tense.

The VENIRE future is an areal feature of the Alps.  Swiss German also 
forms a future with the auxiliary _kommen_ 'to come'.

>> or mine less well known varieties for interesting
>> analytic formations, or borrow the odd syntactical
>> feature from Germanic or Celtic but that's about it.
>
> No - I don't think I'll discover any of those.
>
> [snip]
>
>> but an attempt at inflectionalizing -IZARE didn't
>> convince even myself for more than ten minutes! Indeed
>> one's best bet is to have sound change ruin verbal
>> morphology to the point that it needs restructuring, but
>> Britainese is hardly the right place to do that I guess.
>
> I agree.

Fair.  So it is phonologically more conservative than French?

--
... 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