Print

Print


On 3/27/14, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 26/03/2014 10:36, Alex Fink wrote:
>>> For the same reasons that I accept _fourmage_ above, I
>>>  must accept that the most plausible development for
>>> "Bretainois" is [u] → [y] → [i], and shall be amending
>>>  the Vowels page accordingly.
>>
>> That's still neat, and I like its effects perhaps almost
>>  as much: e.g. it would seem to imply that (barring
>> another later patalalisation or whatnot) Bretainois
>> regains sequences like /ki/ < *cū, contrasting with /či/
>>  < *cī.
>
> Yep.

I think this is neat as well.

> Yes, but the shift happened in P-Celtic before any borrowing
> from Latin.  It also happened in Oscan where _pis_ = Latin
> _quis_.

It certainly did. The words for four and five are (probably) _pettiur_
and _pompe_. In fact it happened for all the Sabellic languages,
basically making them P-Italic where Latin and Faliscan are Q-Italic.
:P

>> it would seem bogo-ish).
>
> I don't think that by itself would make it a bogolang.  The
> problem, if you wanted to make it vaguely plausible, is to
> come up with a context in which it might have happened,

I think it unlikely given that all the romance languages around it
have the change  /kw/ -> /k/. I think if you are avoiding the change
/u/ -> /1/ then you would have trouble justifying /kw/ -> /p/.

--

This is a very cool project and I am eagerly awaiting more. A romlang
as well-done as this is very interesting to follow. I do have a
question for you, Ray, about your BART. I know you said it wasn't up
for discussion, but I was wondering when Welsh would die out? IIRC
Welsh held out in the mountainous Wales throughout Roman occupation
and Germanic and Norman rule. Why would Welsh die out in this
timeline?

I can see Welsh dying out if Britainois slowly spreads and replaces
it, in the same way that English has almost replaced Irish and Gaelic
in recent centuries. In that case Welsh would only recently have died
out, and may well become revived in the same way that Cornish is in
our timeline.

I wonder whether the speakers of Britainois would cherish their Celtic
ancestry the way the French do (to the point that Kanak people in New
Caledonia learn the phrase 'nos ancêtres les gaulois').

Anyway, can't wait to see more of the language itself!


James

On 3/27/14, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 26/03/2014 10:36, Alex Fink wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Well explained.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> I hadn't taken stock of the importance of time, as
>> opposed to merely place, in the variation between
>> *caseus and *formaticum, which in retrospect was an
>> important thing to overlook.
>
> Yes, i think we have to forget that Bretainois is not
> another Brithenig; the 'point of divergence' of Ill Bethisad
> (it actually has more than one POD) is not the same as that
> of BART.  In the latter there is continuous contact with the
> Romance of Gaul.
>
> [snip]
>>>
> PART 2.
>> [...]
>>> For the same reasons that I accept _fourmage_ above, I
>>>  must accept that the most plausible development for
>>> "Bretainois" is [u] → [y] → [i], and shall be amending
>>>  the Vowels page accordingly.
>>
>> That's still neat, and I like its effects perhaps almost
>>  as much: e.g. it would seem to imply that (barring
>> another later patalalisation or whatnot) Bretainois
>> regains sequences like /ki/ < *cū, contrasting with /či/
>>  < *cī.
>
> Yep.
>
>> Have you figured out the fate of consonant+*v onsets? If
>> they were preserved this would extend even to a three-way
>> contrast /kwi ki či/, which would be fun to have in a
>> Romance language.  (And both English and Welsh seem
>> friendly enough to them...)
>
> Yes, but Bretainois is a Romance language.  The treatment of
> qu- is not the same before all vowels in Vulgar Latin.  My
> own feeling is that, e.g. _qui_ will turn up as as _ki_.
> But I've yet to work seriously on consonants.
> ===========================================================
>
> On 26/03/2014 10:42, Siva Kalyan wrote:
>> A “P-Romance” language (*qu > p) would be fun (but
>> Romanian already does that
>
> Certainly not in all contexts, e.g. quid -> ce /ʧe/.  IIRC
> the way qu- is treated is more like its development in
> proto-Greek.
>
>> —and since Welsh does, too,
>
> Yes, but the shift happened in P-Celtic before any borrowing
> from Latin.  It also happened in Oscan where _pis_ = Latin
> _quis_.
>
>> it would seem bogo-ish).
>
> I don't think that by itself would make it a bogolang.  The
> problem, if you wanted to make it vaguely plausible, is to
> come up with a context in which it might have happened,
>
> --
> 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".
>


-- 
(This is my signature.)