On 04/01/2014 11:39, Christian Thalmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:43:39 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
>> regional variant of VL.  Indeed, one such bogolang IIRC
>> actually applied the sound changes to Classical Latin!
> Are you referring to Jovian with that last statement?

I don't know, which is why I simply wrote "If I recall
correctly"    :)

But from what you write below, it possibly was.

> If so, could you explain your definition of a bozolang?

I did this in an email on the 2nd January, when I wrote:
"Unless I'm completely mistaken, the idea of a
bogolang is to take a language X at a particular time in its
past history and then apply the diachronic sound changes of
another language Y, starting at the 'particular time', to
give your new language Z."

There - I've defined it twice now    :)

> It strikes me as a rather offensive term.

Also in the same email I wrote:
"NOTE: I use the term 'bogolang' above, not because I like
the term (I don't), but simply because no one has come up
with a better alternative."

FWIW I've always thought the term was somewhat derogatory,
but then IMO one of the proposed alternative names
"bastardlang" is surely no improvement in that regard.  If
the list comes up an alternative that most people accept, I
will use happily use it. As I wrote: I don't like the term

> For the record, Jovian's sound changes are not copied
> from any existing language. Its overall sound is
> designed to evoke the Alemannic substrate of the Alsace
> region, but it reaches that goal through phonological
> evolution that I find sensible and naturalistic (from my
> non-professional point of view).  It also includes a lot
> of grammatical and idiomatic innovation.

The thread was concerned with sound changes; I imagine many
Romance conlangs have some grammatical innovations.  If it
is _substrate_ effect this may be different from a strict

> The fact that it is chiefly based on Classical Latin is
> justified con-historically by a few generations of
> nobility who declared the Vulgar Latin of the people
> distasteful (lingua bovis) and strove to speak Classical
> Latin at court instead (lingua Jovis). This then
> trickled down to the general population with time, as did
> the Norman vocabulary in English.

I think the parallels are rather questionable.

> (I admit I introduced this device simply because I only
> had access to Classical Latin vocabulary when I started
> Jovian, but nowadays I enjoy the way in which Jovian
> breaks the tired Romlang clichés.)

But if this is so, then the table given on the Ill Bethisad
Wiki is surely incorrect:

According to that table, Jovian is a member of the Western
Romance group.  If it is descended from Classical Latin and
_not_ from Vulgar Latin, the table is not correct.  Indeed,
as it descends from _lingua Latina_ and not from the spoken
_lingua Romanica_ it is not a Romance language at all -
though it is, of course, Latinate.

FWIW I still think the plethora of Romancelangs in Ill
Bethisad a wee bit on the high side    ;)

If /ni/ can change into /ɑ/, then practically
anything can change into anything.