Print

Print


So I need three categories of words? One for attested words (e.g. mezēnai=
to the horseman) one for attested words with different inflections (e.g.
mezēnais= the horseman) and one for words I just made up (e.g. mez- = to
knight someone, to give someone a horse)?
That makes sense, since I'm not sure that the interpretation of "mezenai"
is correct. Does it really mean "horseman"? Is it really in the dative
case? If not, then all the other derivations will be wrong.
So maybe it goes like this:
*mendyos (real PIE root)
mezēnai (attested word)
mezēnas* (unattested inflection)
mez-** (totally unattested)
and what about words like "neprâtke" (a buttercup/a hatchling viper), which
come from modern languages and which I'm claiming in my work of fiction are
borrowings from Thracian? Three asterisks?

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:49 PM BPJ <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Well, it's up to you but in my book *synchronically* altered words are
> non-attested words. In some contexts even applying known inflections to
> known words, but those particular forms of those particular words not being
> attested in the sources (on the stone) would need marking, e.g. if you are
> discussing what the correct inflexion of those words may be. When
> discussing a fictional descendant of a partly attested language what makes
> sense is of course to mark words without an attested etymon rather than
> particular forms of words. In a con-descendant scenario you would expect
> attested ancestor forms/words to have changed over time, so marking
> everything which isn't identical to the ancestor forms as unattested would
> make little sense in that case.
>
> Den tors 16 maj 2019 11:28Daniel Bensen <[log in to unmask]> skrev:
>
> > I like that system. Let's see if I got it right.
> >
> > Darzelas da* jae* uta zemelta. = The Wealthgiver rides again upon the
> > Earth.
> >
> > Where da* and jae* are words I reconstructed from PIE words, and don't
> > appear in any real Thracian material.
> > But the last two words aren't exactly as attested. Uta has an epenthetic
> > vowel (attested form is "ut") and zemelta has a suffixed article
> (attested
> > form is "zemele").
> >
> > What do I do with words like that?
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:42 PM BPJ <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > In my writings on a-posteriori diachronic conlanging, whether
> > a-posteriori
> > > relative to some natlang or relative to/about someone else's (usually
> > > Tolkien's) diachronic conlangs I use asterisks _after_ the word to
> > indicate
> > > con-status, so _foo*_ is a "synchronic" form which is unattested in the
> > > sources, _*foo*_ is a pre-form not attested in the sources (e.g.
> Jibrish
> > > _fó_ ought to be derived from Proto-Jibric _*phō_, but the original
> > > author/real world scholars haven't actually given that form so I write
> it
> > > _*phō*_) or modern Jibrish _fó_ ought to have been _phoo_ in Old
> Jibrish
> > > but the form _phoo_ doesn't occur original author's writings/the
> natlang
> > > sources, so I write it _phoo*_. Likewise _*bāwr_ and _baor_ don't occur
> > in
> > > the sources, and are probably not well-formed by the standards of the
> > > sources so I write them _*bāwr**_ and _baor**_ so that I don't have to
> > > write out "constructed [by me] form" and "probably not a form which
> > Author
> > > would construct"/"probably not a form which would exist in Natlang" in
> > > words at every turn. Sometimes I use daggers † and ‡ before the form
> for
> > > the same purpose, but (a) Tolkien uses † to indicate a "poetic form"
> and
> > > (b) some authors use _†*foo_ to mean not well-formed reconstructed form
> > and
> > > (c) daggers may be hard to enter/may cause font problems. Daggers
> after a
> > > form so as to not confuse with Markdown/email formatting are of course
> > also
> > > an option. "A whole postulated sentence."* with asterisk/dagger after a
> > > quote is also useful.
> > >
> > > Den lör 11 maj 2019 21:22Daniel Bensen <[log in to unmask]>
> skrev:
> > >
> > > > Oops I forgot to add that pavis=child is attested (also spelled
> paivis,
> > > > puis, and others). I guess I'm stuck with it.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, May 11, 2019, 10:00 PM Daniel Bensen <
> [log in to unmask]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The first line of the poem is finally ready!
> > > > >
> > > > > *p**av**is**o**men* *kâ* *andâ* *bokâ* *il**omen* *ana* *heri**ms*
> > > > >
> > > > > 'pəvit͡somen kə 'andə 'bokə 'ilomen 'ana 'xerims
> > > > >
> > > > > play.1st.pl.imprf and flower.pl.neut.acc nice.pl.neut.acc
> > > > choose.1st.pl.imprf
> > > > > on hand.pl.masc.dat
> > > > >
> > > > > "We were playing and picking beautiful flowers by hand…"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *p**av**is**o* *= *I play < pavis = child < *péh₂wids (Greek páïs,
> > > > > Armenian pʿokʿr)(constructed word)
> > > > >
> > > > > *kâ **=* and < *-kʷe (Phrygian -ke, Greek -te, Albanian
> > > dhe)(constructed
> > > > > word)
> > > > >
> > > > > *andâ**s = *flower *< **h₂éndʰos (Greek ánthos, Albanian
> > > > endë)(constructed
> > > > > word)
> > > > >
> > > > > *bok**â**s* *= *nice, beautiful < *bʰoHu- (Albanian
> > bukur)(constructed
> > > > > word)
> > > > >
> > > > > *il**o **= *I choose, collect, gather < *leǵ- (Greek légō, Albanian
> > > > > mbledh)(attested word: iltea "the chosen woman")
> > > > >
> > > > > *ana = *on, in, at < *h₁én (Greek aná, Albanian në)(attested word:
> > > an(a)
> > > > > "on, in, at")
> > > > >
> > > > > *heris = *hand *< **ǵʰesr- (Phrygian zeira, Greek kheír, Albanian
> > > > > dorë)(attested word: heris "hand" Greek loan?)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think? I'm worried "paviso" and "andas" especially are
> > too
> > > > > Greek-looking. And maybe so are the verb conjugations. I'm having
> > > trouble
> > > > > balancing the factual basis of the language (in real attestations
> and
> > > > > plausible derivations from PIE) and my artistic vision for it (a
> > bunch
> > > of
> > > > > troglodytic assassins hissing at each other). Advice welcome!
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>