Philip Newton wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:51, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Latin to Romansch sound changes might be OK - tho clearly there'd have be
>> some modification as the phonology of ancient & Koine Greek was somewhat
>> different from that of Latin. One major difference was the existence of
>> _two_ series voiceless plosives in Greek, aspirated & unaspirated, while
>> Latin had only one.
> Very true. I've got some ideas what to do with the voiceless aspirated
> series, but nothing final yet. (Except that p_h will most likely end
> up as [f].)

Actually, I realize I've slipped up here! On the TAKE home 
page I wrote:
"Assumptions made about the Greek of WHATL
- That itacism did not become universal; that, in fact, in 
Vulgar Greek eta was pronounced [e:] as its reflexes in the 
modern Hellenic languages of south-western Europe clearly show.
- That upsilon remained [y] in most areas in the Vulgar 
Greek period.
- While there is evidence of monophthongization of the 
diphthongs ending in iota during the Vulgar Greek period, 
the diphthongs in upsilon clearly remained, the second 
element retaining high back rounded sound, until the 
development of the early Hellenic languages, as their 
treatment in the different languages shows.
- That aspiration of vowels was lost completely in Vulgar 
Greek (as indeed it was in our world in both Vulgar Latin 
and Byzantine Greek) and, at the same time, the aspirated 
plosives became fricatives.
- That although there was a tendency for intervocalic voiced 
plosives to be fricativized, the plosive pronunciation was 
retained in initial positions throughout the Vulgar Greek 
period and, indeed, into the Hellenic languages of 
south-western Europe.
- That (just as in our world) the old pitch accent gave way 
to one of stress on the same syllable as the pitch accent 
had been. This led to the breakdown of phonemic contrast of 
long and short vowels.

I.e. in WHATL even Vulgar Greek had only one set of 
voiceless plosives, the earlier aspirated ones having 
already become /f/, /θ/ and /x/. While Latin *here* had /f/, 
it had no /θ/ or /x/ - so what calls for imagination is how 
/θ/ or /x/ would've have mapped into the Hellenic langs.

>> Syntax is probably not a great problem but applying Latin to Romansch
>> morphology change to Greek is IMO not the best idea  ;)
> Well, the main change I had in mind was "reduced nominal inflection",
> with just a singular/plural system much like English (or, well,
> Romansh), possibly with a nominative/oblique stage along the way (like
> French or older Romansh); not specific morphological changes.

I see. Yes, the old dative would almost certainly have gone 
everywhere (as it has gone in modern Greek) and it's no 
exactly difficult to see why nominatives & accusatives might 
not have remained distinct.  But I have a gut feeling that 
the genitive might have held out till modern times in many 
(all? most?) areas of 'western Hellenism.'

>> No - it is not thought that Latin _picked up_ the genitive -i: from Celtic.
>> The genitive -i: is one of several isoglosses found in both Celtic and
>> _Italic_ (not just Latin) languages which have led some to postulate a
>> common Celto-Italic proto-language (within the IE family, of course).
> Ah, OK. So that wouldn't work (unless there were a
> proto-Celto-Hellenic in WHATL...). It was just an idea anyway.

No, no - not a proto-Celtic-Hellenic in _my_ WHATL. I assume 
that in both WHAT & *here* ancient Greek was ancient Greek - 
there no divergence until the Vulgar Greek of the Hellenic 

BTW I've made slight changes in the TAKE pages. On the 
'Time' page the reference to Pope Gregorios XIII has been 
removed. Because of the importance of Easter and the use of 
the Spring Equinox in determining the date of Easter, I'm 
sure a change analogous to that of Gregory XIII would have 
occurred at some time.  But if there'd been no division 
between Greek & Latin Christianity, it is not unlikely that 
the change might have been effected earlier.

One the TAKE home page I merely say now:
"I have no intention of developing any more detailed 
alternative history than that which I have outlined above 
and on the 'Time' page in reference to the calendar. There 
would, of course, in WHATL be no Latin and therefore no 
Romance languages and, what is important for this project, 
no Latin alphabet."

Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.