Page 104 of 106

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 12 Jun 2019 11:57
by shimobaatar
Ælfwine wrote:
12 Jun 2019 03:50
Yay or Nay: Crimean Gothic shall have front rounded vowels /ø/ and /y/ from PGmc *eu and *iu respectively.

I'm not sold on having front rounded vowels. Greek and Slavic influence suggests against them, but Crimean Tatar suggests for it. There is also no evidence for front rounded vowels in the corpus (but that doesn't mean CG may not have had it.) Still, I like the faux German look on the romanization (although this will obviously not apply to Cyrillic.)
Nay.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 12 Jun 2019 15:58
by Ælfwine
Zekoslav wrote:
12 Jun 2019 11:12
When did the Crimean Tatars arrive in Crimea?

Probably along with the Golden Horde, so 13th century.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 12 Jun 2019 16:06
by Zekoslav
Ælfwine wrote:
12 Jun 2019 15:58
Zekoslav wrote:
12 Jun 2019 11:12
When did the Crimean Tatars arrive in Crimea?

Probably along with the Golden Horde, so 13th century.
The likelihood of *iu > /y/ and *eu > /ø/ would then depend on whether these diphtongs were preserved until the Tatars came. If they were monophthongized much earlier, then the likelihood of such a result decreases. However, as I've already said sometimes relying too much on historical realism can be limiting, especially when certain things are still debated in historical linguistics!

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 13 Jun 2019 00:38
by Ælfwine
Zekoslav wrote:
12 Jun 2019 16:06
Ælfwine wrote:
12 Jun 2019 15:58
Zekoslav wrote:
12 Jun 2019 11:12
When did the Crimean Tatars arrive in Crimea?

Probably along with the Golden Horde, so 13th century.
The likelihood of *iu > /y/ and *eu > /ø/ would then depend on whether these diphtongs were preserved until the Tatars came. If they were monophthongized much earlier, then the likelihood of such a result decreases. However, as I've already said sometimes relying too much on historical realism can be limiting, especially when certain things are still debated in historical linguistics!
Even in Wulfilas time, the monophthongs /ai/ and /au/ were already monophthongizing to /ɛː/ and /ɔː/ respectively. This may have also happened to /iu/, it may have been something like /ɯː/. Notably, /eu/ is not present in Biblical Gothic, as it previously merged with /iu/, so that's something I am considering. That being said, this language is not a descendant of Biblical Gothic so I don't need to follow it.

Alternatively, it might follow Greek in first monophthongizing to /yː/ and then unrounding to /iː/, but I need specific dates for that.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 13 Jun 2019 10:14
by Zekoslav
In Greek, /y/ > /i/ happened in the 11th century, and that's pretty securely dated.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 14 Jun 2019 16:37
by Ælfwine
Zekoslav wrote:
13 Jun 2019 10:14
In Greek, /y/ > /i/ happened in the 11th century, and that's pretty securely dated.
Good to know. So the development until the 6th century or so is the same as Biblical Gothic, when <iu> monophthongizes to /y/. And then in the 11th century, during the same time as Greek it derounds to /i/.

Also, I decided not to include front rounded vowels. It's unlikely. Furthermore, along with spelling /T/ as <th>, I can use the 26 letter basic latin alphabet for my romanization, which I find quite convenient.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 14 Jun 2019 19:41
by Zekoslav
In that context, if the Goths switch to Cyrillic anytime, you might use the letter izhitsa, ѵ, to represent former /y/ as it was the letters function in Greek loanwords to Slavic (the existence of izhitsa is one of the clues that Greek still had /y/ in the 800's when the glagolitic and the cyrillic alphabets were invented, but there's other clues as well).

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 14 Jun 2019 22:59
by Ælfwine
Zekoslav wrote:
14 Jun 2019 19:41
In that context, if the Goths switch to Cyrillic anytime, you might use the letter izhitsa, ѵ, to represent former /y/ as it was the letters function in Greek loanwords to Slavic (the existence of izhitsa is one of the clues that Greek still had /y/ in the 800's when the glagolitic and the cyrillic alphabets were invented, but there's other clues as well).
The Goths would have switched to the Cyrillic script in the early 20th century, presumably around the same time Crimean Tatar was given its own script. This makes sense, given their location and orthodox faith. So I'm not too sure about introducing <ѵ>, except perhaps on etymological grounds only. Its something I'll think about though.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 15 Jun 2019 05:33
by Omzinesý
Ælfwine wrote:
14 Jun 2019 22:59
Zekoslav wrote:
14 Jun 2019 19:41
In that context, if the Goths switch to Cyrillic anytime, you might use the letter izhitsa, ѵ, to represent former /y/ as it was the letters function in Greek loanwords to Slavic (the existence of izhitsa is one of the clues that Greek still had /y/ in the 800's when the glagolitic and the cyrillic alphabets were invented, but there's other clues as well).
The Goths would have switched to the Cyrillic script in the early 20th century, presumably around the same time Crimean Tatar was given its own script. This makes sense, given their location and orthodox faith. So I'm not too sure about introducing <ѵ>, except perhaps on etymological grounds only. Its something I'll think about though.
Chechen uses <аь, оь, уь> for front vowels.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 15 Jun 2019 10:59
by Zekoslav
Ah, if they switched to Cyrillic only in the 20th century, then there's not reason at all to use izhitsa.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 16 Jun 2019 22:12
by Micamo
should I make a conworld thread for my litRPG novel attempt

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 16 Jun 2019 23:50
by Keenir
Micamo wrote:
16 Jun 2019 22:12
should I make a conworld thread for my litRPG novel attempt
Yes.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 17 Jun 2019 08:09
by DesEsseintes
Micamo wrote:
16 Jun 2019 22:12
should I make a conworld thread for my litRPG novel attempt
Absolutely.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 17 Jun 2019 18:56
by eldin raigmore
Micamo wrote:
16 Jun 2019 22:12
should I make a conworld thread for my litRPG novel attempt
Yay!

BTW is Neal Stephenson’s “Ream.De” a litRPG novel?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reamde
https://books.google.com/books/about/Re ... ead_button

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 17 Jun 2019 19:30
by Micamo
I haven't read it but judging by the summary I would say no. An MMO is an element of the story but all the actual story beats happen in the real world. LitRPG doesn't preclude that dramatic things are happening in the real world as well, but the focus is on what players in the game are doing.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 17 Jun 2019 20:22
by elemtilas
DesEsseintes wrote:
17 Jun 2019 08:09
Micamo wrote:
16 Jun 2019 22:12
should I make a conworld thread for my litRPG novel attempt
Absolutely.
[+1]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 18 Jun 2019 14:40
by clawgrip
clawgrip wrote:
09 Jun 2019 14:14
I have two language families that occupy the same geographical area in a conworld. Although they are not related, for some reason or another they both form the passive voice through reduplication of the initial syllable of the stem. This was not actually planned, as I think I unconsciously reused the same idea in both languages before I even decided they were going to be in the same location. Examples from two languages from the two different families:

Nandut: pām "he writes" ; bapām "it is written"
Uyendur: ganur "he writes" ; gegnur "it is written"

It was an accident, but I kind of like how they share this unusual feature. Anyway, for various reasons, I have decided it is necessary for there to be a third language or language family that is not related to either of them, in the same location. This language family will not be as prominent and will be an isolate or very small family, one or two languages.

The question is, should I give this language the reduplicated passive as well, as some sort of weird areal thing, or should it just be something unrelated?
It's done:
Dugassa: rāmal "he writes" ; rarāmal "it is written"

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 23 Jun 2019 07:04
by TwistedOne151
So, I have a particular conlang, and wanted to use a variant of the Greek alphabet as its script (mainly thinking of drawing upon late Koine or early Medieval Greek). While the vowels were fairly easy, the large consonant inventory gave me a little trouble. But then, searching about, I came across the variant of the Greek alphabet used by the Arvanites to write Albanian (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_ ... characters), and was inspired. This is the result:

Vowels:
/i y u/ Ιι Υυ Ου,ου
/e̞ ə o̞/ Εε Ε̱ε̱ Οο
/a/ Αα

Consonants:
/m n/ Μμ Νν
/pʰ tʰ kʰ/ Π̇π̇ Τ̇τ̇ Κ̇κ̇
/p t k/ Ππ Ττ Κκ
/b d g/ Β̇β̇ Δδ Γγ
/tʃʰ/ Ϛ̇ͅϛ̇ͅ
/ts tʃ/ Ϛϛ Ϛͅϛͅ
/dʒ/ Ζ̇ͅζ̇ͅ
/f s ʃ x h/ Φφ Σσ Σͅσͅ Χ̇χ̇ Χχ
/v z ʒ/ Ββ Ζζ Ζͅζͅ
/ɾ~r ʀ/ Ρρ Ρ̇ρ̇
/l j/ Λλ Ϊϊ

Note: the overdot generally marks a "fortis" consonant: an aspirated vs. a tenuis plosive or affricate, a voiced stop or affricate vs. a voiced fricative, /x/ vs. /h/, /ʀ/ vs. /r/; while the iota subscript/ypogegrammeni is applied to alveolar consonants to create their postalveolar counterparts.

Yay or nay?

Possible alternatives: use theta for /tʰ/? Use the single "fortis dot" instead of the diaeresis, giving Ι̇ι̇ for /j/, so as to have one less diacritic? Use xi or psi somewhere instead? I also have Ου as my only digraph; perhaps some alternative there? Use omega (merged with omicron in pronunciation in the classical era) instead of omicron for /o/, and have ου > ο for /u/?

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 24 Jun 2019 01:52
by Ælfwine
Zekoslav wrote:
15 Jun 2019 10:59
Ah, if they switched to Cyrillic only in the 20th century, then there's not reason at all to use izhitsa.
They would have used the Gothic alphabet for the longest time. Supposedly, we have reports of its continued use among the Goths until the 17th century, and lo and behold a few years back we found some graffiti written in the alphabet, dated to the 9th century, giving credence to those reports.

Related to my previous point: do we know the exact date Greek lost gemination? I am trying to decide whether Gothish should also lose gemination. There is no evidence for or against it in the CG corpus, so it's a tough choice.

Edit: to answer the above as not to appear rude, I have the idea of marking aspiration on the vowel, much like Ancient Greek, although I am not sure if that style was still present in Medieval Greek. Also, I don't think having one digraph is too weird if you can justify it as Greek influence.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 24 Jun 2019 08:08
by TwistedOne151
Ælfwine wrote:
24 Jun 2019 01:52
Edit: to answer the above as not to appear rude, I have the idea of marking aspiration on the vowel, much like Ancient Greek, although I am not sure if that style was still present in Medieval Greek. Also, I don't think having one digraph is too weird if you can justify it as Greek influence.
The /h/ sound appears to have been lost in Koine (earlier for some dialects), but the dasía diacritic remained in use long enough to be borrowed by the Early Cyrillic Alphabet (late 9th century), so it's plausible to borrow it for aspiration and for /h/. This might be a little confusing for clusters of an aspirate consonant + a following consonant, like /pʰr/, /kʰl/, /tʰj/, /tʃʰv/, but since the second consonant of such clusters is never something with an aspirate counterpart, it could probably still work: πρἁλ for /pʰral/ versus πραλ for /pral/, τϊἑκ for /tʰjek/ versus τϊεκ for /tjek/, ϛͅβὁρ̇ου for /tʃʰvoʀu/ versus ϛͅβορ̇ου for /tʃvoʀu/, and so on.

This would reduce the overdot to just Β̇β̇, Ζ̇ͅζ̇ͅ, Ρ̇ρ̇ for /b dʒ ʀ/ versus Ββ, Ζͅζͅ, Ρρ for /v ʒ r/. That's much nicer, and looks more "authentically" Greek-derived. Thank you very much.