Print

Print


Except that the fascinating thing about Ray's project is that it isn't
artistic and subjective but rather is a scrupulously scholarly best
estimate of what a British Romance language would have been like (given
certain minimal foundational uchronian assumptions). Really it's an
engelang and a work of creative scholarship. And it's a deep pleasure to
see it unfold and read Ray's justifications for each detail.

And
On 26 Mar 2014 17:46, "Pete Bleackley" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> This is a good opportunity to quote my conlanging motto, "Let your
> language decide." It's not a matter of whether sound change A or sound
> change B is more plausible - as far as I can tell, both are equally likely.
> It's a subjective, artistic decision as to which you feel suits the
> language better, so it's entirely your call.
>
> --
> Pete
> The Fantastical Devices of Pete The Mad Scientist -
> http://fantasticaldevices.blogspot.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:58
> Subject: Bretainois, Bretaineis or what?
>
> I'd like to canvass views, if any, on another point that has
> been queried in a private email.  That is the development of
> Vulgar Latin /e/ and /o/ (i.e. Classical Latin /ē/ and /ō/)
> in open topic syllables.  In many Romance languages they
> just remained /e/ and /o/, but in the northern and
> south-eastern Gaul, in northern Italy and in western and
> central Raetia we find /e/ -> /ei/ and /o/ -> /ou/.
>
> That is how we find them in Norman French, hence all the
> Latin words ending -ōre(m) come to us with the Norman
> spelling which, for the most part, is still retained by
> Brits, i.e. hour, colour, honour, splendour, etc. (Our
> American cousins have reverted to a Latinate spelling,
> except for _hour_).  Also we have _ei_ in words like
> _conceive, conceit, receive, recei(p)t- etc.
>
> In other areas /ei/ changed to /ai/  or /oi/ (the latter
> also underwent further change in some places, e.g. France;
> but I'm leaving that for the moment).  AFAIK /ai/ in some
> Romansh dialects but not in those that are in contact with
> Britain.  However we do find /ei/ => /oi/ in some early
> French dialects.  AIUI /ei/ persisted in north west and
> south east France.  It changed to /ai/ in some Gallo-Italian
> dialects.  It changed to /oi/ in north east and central
> France (still preserved so in modern French spelling!).
>
> I have no doubt that Bretainois would have shared in the
> initial development of free tonic /e/ -> /ei/.  The question
> is whether it would have remained at this stage, as Norman
> French did, or whether it would have shared in the further
> change /ei/ -> /oi/ of the dialects of central and north
> eastern France (including Picardy).  I have assumed the
> latter, because:
> - the proximity of south east Britain to north east France;
> - we find a similar development in Welsh of /eː/ -> /uɨ/ (a
> _falling_ diphthong, written _wy_).
>
> Similarly I have assume the change /o/ -> /ou/ -> /eu/ (Old
> French /øu/).
>
> So is it Bretainois or Bretaineis? - (assuming Latin
> _Brittania_ -> Bretain)     :)
>
> Those who object that the Latin should be _Britannia_,
> please read:
>
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Britannic/preliminary.html#named_after_country
>
> --
> 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".
>