Print

Print


Paul Bennett skrev:

 > See, stuff like this is exactly why I'm glad I found this
 > list. I could have spent *years* figuring out something as
 > simple and realistic as that, though I would have been
 > more likely to have produced something far more wrong than
 > even my previous attempt.
 >
 > I do think I might have to be (probably unreasonably)
 > fond of including /E/ in the vowel set. It's not in Proto-
 > Alg, but it seems to occur in what seem to be the most
 > local Alg languages, often in addition to /e/ and (less
 > often) /e:/.

I'm not sure what you mean these systems look like. Are they
E/e or E/e: or E/e/e:? Surely not
E/A:/e/e:? I can inagine E/e or E/e: arise thru e > E with
     or without subsequent e: > E. Quite possibly the Proto-
     Alg. e/e: was actually
E/B:, unless all universals are out in those parts. I'm at a
     loss how E/e/e: might arise from ON. If these langs have
     lost length altogether I'd expect

- i > e
- e: > je/jE
- E/9 > E
- E: > Aj
- 9: > Ew
- i: > i

Of course you might have this and then length
reappering from Vr.

 > As I'm typing this, and checking my notes, I'm actually
 > verging on being tempted to have a three-way short ~ long
 > ~ open contrast in /e/ and maybe /o/.

You know Icelandic

:  i                          í
:  I   Y   orthographic       i    u
:  E   9                      e    ö

might just as well be (and used to be) transcribed as

:  i
:  e   2
:  E   9

but then again you'd have E/9 i/y merger and no length. You
might have length loss and short E/9 merging into /e:/ or
/E:/, perhaps depending on whether a /j/ followed or not!


 >> Note that fC probably > wC too, unless fC > hC. Certainly
 >> pp tt kk would > hp ht hk, and Gt kt > ht. (Icelandic
 >> actually distinguishes tt > ht from kt/Gt > xt!)
 >
 > Long stops are allowable (it seems) in at least some of
 > the local languages (and indeed Inuktitut goes to some
 > trouble to create them, AIUI), and I'm tempted to take my
 > cue from those rather than from "mainland" Norse
 > languages.

Since Alg. lacks a phonemic voicing contrast in stops I'd
expect something akin to Icelandic:

- _t_ = /t_h/
- _tt_ = /ht/
- _d_ = /t/
- _dd_ = /tt/

I thought of a way to lose ON /r/ by having /r/ and /hr/
merge and come out as /S/. I'd not be surprised if the
Skrælings would hear even a voiced trill as a fricative, if
their own language lacked a rhotic. ON /r\/ OTOH might give
vowel length. (You'd have to check in an etymological
dictionary which ON _r_s correspond to Gothic _z_! The two
sounds merged in the course of the 11th century however.)

 >
 >> This would be scarily close to my own Hwinlenska, but
 >> I'll probably not do anything with that anyway.

My brain made a volt there: /f/ would go to /hw/ but /w/
would remain, so _Winlenska_ (although at least in my case
spelling would be conservative _Vinlenzka_, and in the case
of f/hw reversed so that _hwat_ > _fa(t)_).

One thorny problem is how to lose þ. In my Vinlenzka þ > h.
Faroese has this in some derivatives of PIE *to-, though I
universalized it. _Þorn_ and _horn_ is a funny merger.
Others may be not so easy to live with. Obviously the
cleaning patrol would have to take in some Slræling
vocabulary to disambiguate! :-)

 > Congratulations. You just became my "go to guy" for
 > Finlaesk ;-)

I'm your man, as time may allow!

 > Oh, cuss, cuss, cuss. I'm going to have to change even the
 > very name of the language. Proper preparation & planning
 > prevents poor performance, I guess, but I just keep
 > finding new and interesting ways in which I've been flat
 > out stupid...

Sohlob started out as Sahrab, then became Sahlab before
settling on Sohlob, not to mention Kejeb > Kijeb,
Raamiyaan > Baazramani, Slevanek > Slvanjec > Slvanjek,
R3 > Rhodrese/Rhodray Borgonziay or Knòškè > Knoschke > Knaske
(although I'll keep Knoschke as the German and hence English
spelling). IOW welcome in the club!

/BP