Print

Print


On 25/10/2010 10:17, Peter Bleackley wrote:
> staving Jörg Rhiemeier:
[snip]
>>
>> Object incorporation may be possible, but it would be
>> unusual for
>> a European language (I assume that your romlang is
>> somewhere in or
>> near Europe, otherwise it would be difficult to get the
>> Romans
>> there).

Yes, but Pete wants the language to have some unusual 
features so, once it was isolated from mainstream spoken 
Latin, it would, I think, have had to develop somewhere 
where it had no contact with the Vulgar Latin of the Empire.

The Romans did get about quite a bit. They certainly pushed 
eastwards and, at one point, made a serious attempt to bring 
the Parthians permanently into the Empire.  There were trade 
contacts with India and China - obviously through 
intermediaries.  But a delegation that traveled along the 
silk route might have got isolated somewhere, I guess.

>>
>
> The idea came from the fact that when my children were first
> learning to talk, they would often render /st/ as [d]. Alex
> Fink's analysis is probably going to be the one I use.

I have no problem with this development.

> The object incorporation comes from the fact that word final
> <m> was realised as nasalisation of the preceeding vowel,
> and that final vowels elided before a vocalic onset.

One must remember that both those statements are subjects of 
controversy.  The verse form Classical Latin were inherited 
& developed from Greek models and certain practices were 
conventional.  There is, for example, much debate on how one 
should read Vergil's hexameters.

> Therefore
> puer puellam amat
> would have been pronounced something like
>
> [puer puellamat]

If _puellamat_ came to be pronounced as one word, i.e. the 
stress was on the _e_, /pu'ellamat/      :)

> so I'm generalising from that
>
> Another thing I'm going to do is retain -que.

..and -ve?

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".