Print

Print


I guess I should say that grammatically Lusitanian is different from 
Portuguese and other IE languages in that it's shed gender, number and 
all inflectional endings, for example, using traditional terms, in 
pronouns https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m_-64EIoH6STlWN3c3SS1LSXM 
.  The only inflections to speak of are contrasting +/- plural stems in 
nouns and +/- perfect stems in verbs (+plural or perfect stems 
palatalize the final stem consonant), and of course number in pronouns 
as shown in attached.  Syntactic relationships are shown through word 
order, prepositions and apposition (an option for genitives).  A pretty 
rich subsystem of adverbial particles can be drawn on to refine aspect, 
modality, time and mood.

The alphabet is another matter.  What you saw is really the "New 
Lusitanian Script", which in the Middle Ages ousted the original or 
"Ancient Script": 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m_-64EIoH6bUNEQllRUkVqUlk

On 2/28/2017 9:34 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> No, more from Portuguese, hence the name Lusitanian.I see Lusitanian 
> (mine, not the historical) as originating in the Indo-European 
> homeland, either as a separate branch of Indo-European or an early 
> offshoot of proto-Italic/Celtic.Either way, the vocabulary suggests 
> its speakers had considerable contact with neighboring Hellenic and 
> Slavic speakers.
>
> At some point the Lusitanians migrated southwest, passing through 
> Thrace then southeast accross Asia Minor, where they finally came into 
> contact with Semitic.Here’s where they may have picked up VS word 
> order, vocabulary like the prepositions lɪ bɪ kɪ, the nisba -ij, 
> perhaps the relative pronoun (d)ə and the non-phonemic liaison sound /ʔ/.
>
> Eventually they left the Levant and crossed back into Europe, passing 
> through Celtic territory and picking up some (more) Celtic vocabulary, 
> and ultimately settled in western Iberia.
>
> I based the phonology off of Portuguese, which I love, but it’s only a 
> rough approximation.Vowel nasalization, final-vowel raising and the 
> distribution of r-allophones is similar to Portuguese, but other 
> things like word-final consonants, a palatalized consonant series, 
> geminated consonants, long vowels, and stress are not./l/ (always) and 
> /ɾ/ (usually) mutate to /w/ in syllable-final position as in 
> Portuguese, but this is also written in Lusitanian.Under 
> palatalization, liquids and voiced peripalatals all collapse to /j/ in 
> Lusitanian: /*rʲ *lʲ *ʒʲ *gʲ/ > /j/; obviously nothing similar in 
> Portuguese.
>
> Outside of phonology and some vocabulary it’s quite a bit different, 
> aside from coincidences like modifier following head as dictated by VS 
> order.
>
> On 2/28/2017 4:26 AM, And Rosta wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2017 19:04, "Doug Barton"<[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Because you wouldn't be able to see a couple characters properly, I had to
>> put my own examples in a pdf, sorry too for the hassle of linking.  I
>> assume since I use a custom font there's no other way for others to view
>> correctly:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m_-64EIoH6REdJNS1HZEEyX3c
>>
>>
>> Is it a conhistorical development from Greek? What's the backstory?
>>
>> --And.
>>
>>
>