On 31/12/2013 11:50, Siva Kalyan wrote:
> (Also, on the topic of altlangs: Has anyone done a
> “modern Visigothic”, taking Wulfilan Gothic and applying
>  the sound changes of Castilian? Would that even be
> historically plausible?)

Since when has historical plausibility stopped anyone
creating a bogolang?      ;)


On 01/01/2014 05:49, Roger Mills wrote:
> Siva-- your idea of Gothic with Castilian sound changes
> could be very interesting, though I suspect "early
> Iberian" might be a better choice than Castilian.

Strictly, 'Iberian' is one of the non-IE languages spoken in
the Iberian peninsular before Vulgar Latin took root there:

Whether it was cognate with Basque or not is a debatable.

But "early Iberian Romance" would surely be the starting
point anyway if one is going to apply Castilian sound
changes.  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.

That is: Siva will take Wulfilian Gothic and apply to it the
sound changes that have taken place in Castile from the time
when WG was established there until the present day.

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.  Also, while the bogolang
approach is a fun way of creating a conlang, IMO it is
simply that: a fun way of creating a conlang.

My criticism of the approach in re-creating a plausible
alternate language in an alternative history has been aired
before, and I won't dwell on that now.

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