There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Fiction & language families (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
1.2. Re: Fiction & language families (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
From: Alex Fink
1.3. Re: Fiction & language families (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
From: Padraic Brown
2a. Re: THEORY: Conjugogenesis.
From: David McCann
2b. Re: THEORY: Conjugogenesis.
From: David McCann
3a. Re: Semi-phonemes?
From: Leonardo Castro
4a. Re: adposition cases
From: Garth Wallace
4b. Re: adposition cases
From: neo gu
4c. Re: adposition cases
From: Padraic Brown
5.1. Re: Fiction & language families
From: R A Brown
5.2. Re: Fiction & language families
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
5.3. Re: Fiction & language families
From: Padraic Brown
5.4. Re: Fiction & language families
From: Adam Walker
5.5. Re: Fiction & language families
From: Padraic Brown
5.6. Re: Fiction & language families
From: Adam Walker
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Fiction & language families (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:27 am ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
On Monday 10 June 2013 08:36:48 R A Brown wrote:
> On 09/06/2013 23:48, Padraic Brown wrote:
> > --- On Wed, 6/5/13, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> There are odd exceptions, perhaps, like Brithenig. But
> >> IMO even to classify that as IE without qualification
> >> is misleading. It is a _fictional_ Romancelang.
> >
> > Here, if I may, you're stepping very close to the very
> > barm you wish to avoid lower down.
>
> I did write "perhaps" and underscore "fictional". It seems
> to me that _within the fictional world of Ill Bethisad_,
> Brithenig is a sister Romance language to French, Italian,
> Spanish etc.
Indeed, within that world, it is.
> Whether other such fictional Romancelangs are equally as
> credible is another matter Breathanach, Judajca, Þrjótrunn,
> Wenedyk and Xliponian. These IMO go beyond Brithenig into
> the realm of 'bogolangs' - but I guess within their own
> _fictional_ worlds they are Romancelangs, however
> implausible one may regard them.
Right. We have discussed in the past whether Brithenig is
a "bogolang" or not. As far as I can recall, the term was
coined by Geoff Eddy (the author of Breathanach) for an
a posteriori conlang created by applying sound changes of
one language A to another language B, with some adaptations
as necessary to account for the differences in phonology
between language A and language B. He named Brithenig and
his own Breathanach as examples, if I remember correctly.
Of course, neither Brithenig nor Breathanach apply the
sound changes of Welsh and Irish, respectively, without
any change - both adapt them to the phonology of Latin.
Of course, one can debate whether such grafting (I prefer
the term "graftlang", as I don't see why this technique
always gives a "bogus" result) is plausible. Minority
languages in diaspora (such as Romani) are a test case;
they do *not* follow the sound changes of the host country's
dominant language as the thinking that lies behind this
technique would expect. Languages that are drawn into a
language area foreign to their origin do not converge to the
relevant area by aping another language's sound changes.
Romanian is a test case for this; it has developed a phonology
and a syntax quite similar to that of other Balkan languages,
but it has done so along its own ways.
Yet, one cannot say that, for instance, Brithenig *could not*
have undergone this particular set of sound changes: the
sound changes in themselves are plausible, and the case of
Welsh has shown us that similar changes indeed could have
affected a language in this part of the world. We are dealing
with untestable contrafactual assumptione here.
We have discussed the plausibility of Brithenig a few months
ago in this list; our preliminary result was that a different
outcome is more likely. The situation of British Romance
would have been somewhat different from that of British Celtic,
most importantly, British Romance would have formed a part of
the Romance dialect continuum that extends on the continent
all the way from Portugal to Italy with an outlier in Romania,
while British Celtic was severed from the Continental Celtic
dialect continuum by the simple fact that the latter had died
out.
> ========================================================
>
> On 10/06/2013 00:52, George Corley wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > That strikes me as far too black-and-white. Yes, no
> > conlang can be considered part of a language family for
> > _research purposes_ -- to do so would be silly and
> > meaningless to historical theory.
>
> Absolutely!
Sure. Fictional additions to real language families cannot
count as data sources on the language families, otherwise
one could "prove" almost everything.
> > But I see no reason not to recognize that Brithenig is
> > _intended_ to fit into a _fictional_ alternate-history
> > scenario that puts it in it's alternate-world equivalent
> > of the Romance language family. There is nothing about
> > calling something a "fictional Indo-European language"
> > that anyone here would misconstrue as some claim of
> > _really_ having relevance in the real-world Indo-European
> > language family.
>
> Quite so.
>
> > I think all of us can distinguish between what is true in
> > a fictional world and what is true in the real world.
>
> I would hope so. Also, of course, a fictional world can have
> _its own_ language family/families. The most well known
> example is Tolkien's Elven languages.
Yep.
> [snip]
>
> > In the same way, Brithenig is, within its own fictional
> > world, a Romance language. That has no bearing on
> > real-world historical linguistics, and indeed one could
> > criticize the method of creating Brithenig as somewhat
> > unfounded in historical linguistics, but that doesn't
> > change the facts that its author invented within his own
> > fictional world.
>
> I agree on all points.
So do I.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (66)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Fiction & language families (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:25 am ((PDT))
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:23:46 -0500, Js Bangs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Whether other such fictional Romancelangs are equally as
>> credible is another matter Breathanach, Judajca, Ãrjótrunn,
>> Wenedyk and Xliponian. These IMO go beyond Brithenig into
>> the realm of 'bogolangs' - but I guess within their own
>> _fictional_ worlds they are Romancelangs, however
>> implausible one may regard them.
>
>Is there some misunderstanding of terminology here? I understood the term
>"bogolang" to refer to any a posteriori conlang created by applying the
>sound changes and phonology of one language to a different parent language.
>It is not meant as a judgement on the plausibility or design of such
>language. By this definition, Brithenig is a bogolang just as much as any
>of the others, and I'm surprised to see you making a distinction here.
I was also surprised at your finding Brithenig to be a cut above these others.
I'm interested to hear your reasons for this appraisal more fully.
I'm not really familiar enough with any of these to have any business comparing
them, but my vague impressions had been that Ãrjótrunn was the most carefully
worked out of the six -- or at least Henrik's webpage is the one which shòws
the most work; Brithenig and Wenedyk were somewhat similar in care taken, and
maybe Judajca too except that the target of its grafting was much further from
Latin and the inherent difficulties were accordingly greater; Breathanach was
more slapdash, as witnessed by Geoff Eddy's statement that he's used classical
Latin 'cause he couldn't be bothered to find resources for the vulgar; and then
I just heard about Xliponian for the first time now, but the consonant shift
and other things on its IBWiki page gives me a noobish
tidiness-at-the-expense-of-plausibility impression.
Alex
Messages in this topic (66)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Fiction & language families (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:50 am ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 6/10/13, R A Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: R A Brown <[email protected]>
> Subject: [CONLANG] Fiction & language families (was: Is Esperanto
> Indo-European?)
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, June 10, 2013, 2:36 AM
> On 09/06/2013 23:48, Padraic Brown
> wrote:
> > --- On Wed, 6/5/13, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >> There are odd exceptions, perhaps, like Brithenig.
> But
> >> IMO even to classify that as IE without
> qualification
> >> is misleading. It is a _fictional_
> Romancelang.
> >
> > Here, if I may, you're stepping very close to the very
> > barm you wish to avoid lower down.
>
> I did write "perhaps" and underscore "fictional". It
> seems
> to me that _within the fictional world of Ill Bethisad_,
> Brithenig is a sister Romance language to French, Italian,
> Spanish etc.
Certainly. As I said previously, and indeed *several times previously*, no
one is disputing how a conlang is slotted *within a fictional setting*.
Also, and to be clear, within that fictional setting, there is no need to
state the fictionality of either the language or its status. I think I had
once labelled Brithenig a "Western British Romance" language (i.e., in
order to distinguish it from the presumably defunct Eastern group that
would have been centered at Londinium) -- this being within the fictional
setting, there's no need to say more. The question isn't about fictional
settings, however, and outside that setting, I see no good reason to call
it anything other than a Romance conlang or a fictional Romance language.
> Whether other such fictional Romancelangs are equally as
> credible is another matter
Indeed. Whether or not Brithenig itself, or for that matter, any conlang
at all, is "credible" is also debatable.
> Breathanach, Judajca, Ãrjótrunn, Wenedyk and Xliponian. These IMO go
> beyond Brithenig into the realm of 'bogolangs'
I never really did understand what that term means. Calls to mind a bogus
or falsified language, a language intended to deceive.
> - but I guess within their own _fictional_ worlds they are Romancelangs,
> however implausible one may regard them.
> ========================================================
>
> On 10/06/2013 00:52, George Corley wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > That strikes me as far too black-and-white. Yes, no
> > conlang can be considered part of a language family
> for
> > _research purposes_ -- to do so would be silly and
> > meaningless to historical theory.
>
> Absolutely!
>
> > But I see no reason not to recognize that Brithenig is
> > _intended_ to fit into a _fictional_ alternate-history
> > scenario that puts it in it's alternate-world
> equivalent
> > of the Romance language family. There is nothing about
> > calling something a "fictional Indo-European language"
> > that anyone here would misconstrue as some claim of
> > _really_ having relevance in the real-world
> Indo-European
> > language family.
>
> Quite so.
Again, and to be clear! (again!!), I am *NOT* saying anything whatsoever
about how conlangs are categorised *within their fictional settings! (I
guess this is one reason why we keep hashing and rehashing these
discussions over and over!!)
The original question is concerned with categorising a constructed language
within a real world category, i.e., is Esperanto an Indo-European language
-- the question became applied to other conlangs. Why this has now
morphed into me saying that we can not fit a bloody conlang into a
fictional category is silly, and I do not understand. I NEVER said one
word about *in world* schemes, I never said one word about misconstruing
such *in world* classifications as real world classifications!
> > I think all of us can distinguish between what is true
> > in a fictional world and what is true in the real world.
>
> > In the same way, Brithenig is, within its own fictional
> > world, a Romance language. That has no bearing on
> > real-world historical linguistics, and indeed one could
> > criticize the method of creating Brithenig as somewhat
> > unfounded in historical linguistics, but that doesn't
> > change the facts that its author invented within his own
> > fictional world.
>
> I agree on all points.
At this point, I think I've said quite enough! Clearly, the first fourteen
times weren't sufficient to make the point; one more time probably won't
help matters any. So, untill next year when the same question rolls around
again...
Padraic
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> "language ⦠began with half-musical unanalysed
> expressions
> for individual beings and events."
> [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
>
Messages in this topic (66)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: THEORY: Conjugogenesis.
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:41 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 09:15:37 -0700
Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> Italian sapere 'to know':Â the grammar-book 1st sing. is _(io) so_,
> but dialectally one hears _saccio_, and the grammar-book present
> subjunctive is _saccia_ IIRC. How did this happen?? How did it get
> from VL sapio, sapiam to sacci-??????
Presumably the same way that French got 'je sache' for the subjunctive:
sapia > sapya > sapÇ°a > sapÄa > saÄÄa
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: THEORY: Conjugogenesis.
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:28 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 20:47:10 -0500
Eric Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Jyri Lehtinen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Another example of a conjugation paradigm that mixes material from
> > all over is the 2nd preterite in Udmurt which is used for
> > inferential past tense. The morphemic breakdown of the paradigm for
> > the verb mïnïnï "to go" is (using lazy UPA for transcription):
> > SG1 mïn-iÅk-em
> > SG2 mïn-em-ed
> > SG3 mïn-em
> > PL1 mïn-iÅk-em-mï
> > PL2 mïn-il'l'a-m-dï
> > PL3 mïn-il'l'a-m(-zï)
>
> This _-iÅk-_ reminds me again of Latin and Romance, viz. the
> (originally inchoative) _-esc-_ affix which underwent semantic
> bleaching and came to be obligatory in many verb forms. In the Vulgar
> Latins leading to Italian and French, it occurred (and took the
> accent, which would otherwise have fallen on the root) in all the
> present tense verb forms *except* the ones that already had accent
> after the root (in the present tense at least; I don't recall if it
> happened elsewhere). So:
>
> *pár-o -> *par-ésc-o
> *pár-es -> *par-ésc-es
> *pár-e -> *par-ésc-e
> *par-émos -> *par-émos (no change)
> *par-étes -> *par-étes (no change)
> *pár-unt -> *par-ésc-unt
>
This parallel development has been commented on by Uralicists.
Nostraticists would say it's the same suffix too. In IE, -sk- is
inceptive in Latin, iterative in Greek, intensive/durative in Hittite,
and has been compared to the Tocharian verb skai- 'to attempt'. In
Uralic, it's generally frequentive, sometimes intensive, and inceptive
in Veps.
Rumanian not only uses -sk- to level the position of the stress in -i
stems, but also -iz- in some -a stems:
a vorbi 'to speak': 1st sing. vorbesc, 1st pl. vorbim
a adresa 'to address': adresez, adresÄm
I did that for the regular conjugations in Liburnese:
rimar 'to row': rimej, rimans
ï¬nir 'to finish': ï¬nesc, ï¬nins
as opposed to the irregular
canta 'to sing': cant, cantans
durmir 'to sleep': dorm, durmins
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Semi-phonemes?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:17 am ((PDT))
2013/6/9 Matthew Boutilier <[email protected]>:
> what you are describing sounds a lot like this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final-obstruent_devoicing
>
> with some extra concessions for geminate position.
>
> it sounds like /pappap/ and /pabbab/ are phonetically identical (and may be
> pronounced differently, as you say, according to "accent," but nonetheless
> the same as each other). so i am envisioning it like this:
>
> /pappap/ and /pabbab/ both = [pappap]
> OR
> both = [pabbab]
>
> maybe instead of final devoicing you have final *voicing* - either way, the
> phonemic contrast is NEUTRALIZED, which is the word you are looking for.
>
> you can still say they are different *phonemes* - no need to invoke
> 'semi-phonemes' - that happen to emerge as the same sound ("phone") in
> certain environments.
>
> just like, at least in English as she is spoke by me,
> "badder" is /'bædÉr/
> "batter" is /'bætÉɾ/
> but i pronounce both of them as ['bæɾÉ], neutralizing the difference
> between /t/ and /d/ (if you know German or Turkish or Russian i can give
> you better examples).
To my ears, some Spanish speakers pronounce a flapped /d/ sometimes as
well (in uncareful speech), making it indistinguishable from /ɾ/.
Até mais!
Leonardo
>
> matt
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Matthew A. Gurevitch
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hello CONLANG-L,
>>
>> I have a question that I thought I saw answered here, but I could not find
>> with some quick searches in the archives. What does one call phonemes that
>> are only contrastive in certain contexts, but not contrastive in others?
>>
>> For example, in my conlang, voicing is semi-contrastive, with the pairs /p
>> b/, /t d/, /k g/, /f v/, /s z/, /Ê Ê/, /x É£/, /ts dz/,/ÊÊ ÉÊ/, and
>> /kx gɣ/
>> being distinct word initially, in non-geminated intervocalic position, and
>> certain clusters, while syllable finally or geminated there is no
>> distinction between voicing.
>>
>> /pap/ and /bap/ are a minimal pair, but /pappap/ and /pabbab/ are seen as
>> variants of the same word (albeit seen as having a strange accent).
>>
>> Would you say that the voiced consonants are semi-phonemic, or contrastive
>> in certain environments, or something else entirely?
>>
>> All my best,
>> Matthew Gurevitch
>>
>>
>>
>>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: adposition cases
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:47 am ((PDT))
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:29 PM, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does anyone know of a natlang which marks spatial cases (locative, allative,
> ablative, perlative) on the adposition rather than the noun? It seems like
> this would be reasonable if the adpositions were originally nouns (although I
> guess the object of the adposition would have to be marked genitive?).
Wouldn't those generally not be considered cases in that situation?
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: adposition cases
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:58 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:47:00 -0700, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:29 PM, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Does anyone know of a natlang which marks spatial cases (locative, allative,
>> ablative, perlative) on the adposition rather than the noun? It seems like
>> this would be reasonable if the adpositions were originally nouns (although
>> I guess the object of the adposition would have to be marked genitive?).
>
>Wouldn't those generally not be considered cases in that situation?
I suppose they wouldn't be called cases; but what would they be called?
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: adposition cases
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:37 pm ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 6/10/13, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Does anyone know of a natlang which marks spatial cases (locative,
> >> allative, ablative, perlative) on the adposition rather than the
> >> noun? It seems like this would be reasonable if the adpositions were
> >> originally nouns (although I guess the object of the adposition would
> >> have to be marked genitive?).
>
> > Wouldn't those generally not be considered cases in that situation?
>
> I suppose they wouldn't be called cases; but what would they be called?
Perhaps "declined adpositions"? A la "conjugated preverbs". Same concept
really.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5.1. Re: Fiction & language families
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:21 pm ((PDT))
On 10/06/2013 12:23, Js Bangs wrote:
>> Whether other such fictional Romancelangs are equally
>> as credible is another matter Breathanach, Judajca,
>> Ãrjótrunn, Wenedyk and Xliponian. These IMO go beyond
>> Brithenig into the realm of 'bogolangs' - but I guess
>> within their own _fictional_ worlds they are
>> Romancelangs, however implausible one may regard them.
>
> Is there some misunderstanding of terminology here? I
> understood the term "bogolang" to refer to any a
> posteriori conlang created by applying the sound changes
> and phonology of one language to a different parent
> language.
That is correct. Also note that I did not say that those
languages are outright bogolangs; I said that in my opinion
they stray further into bologlangery than Brithenig.
> It is not meant as a judgement on the plausibility or
> design of such language.
The plausibility remark was not just on the question of
bogolangery; it is also on the plausibility of quite so many
different Romancelangs developing within this small island
on which I live, and in some other places where the Romans
never went in *this* world.
> By this definition, Brithenig is a bogolang just as much
> as any of the others,
IMO this is incorrect.
It is not simply an application of Welsh phonology to
Vulgar Latin, otherwise it would, in fact, be a bit
different from what it is. I am not aware of all that went
on in the development of Brithenig, but I did correspond
with Andrew during the latter stages of its development.
Altho unquestionably there are bogolangish elements, it is
not in my opinion a bogolang.
> and I'm surprised to see you making a distinction here.
As I say, if Brithenig was a "proper" bogolang, it would be
different from what it actually is.
> (I hate the term "bogolang", but it seems to have stuck,
> alas.)
I don't like the term either, but no one has come up with
any better one that has caught on.
==========================================================
On 10/06/2013 16:27, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
[snip]
>
> Right. We have discussed in the past whether Brithenig
> is a "bogolang" or not. As far as I can recall, the term
> was coined by Geoff Eddy (the author of Breathanach) for
> an a posteriori conlang created by applying sound changes
> of one language A to another language B, with some
> adaptations as necessary to account for the differences
> in phonology between language A and language B. He named
> Brithenig and his own Breathanach as examples, if I
> remember correctly.
If so, I do not dispute its application to Breathanach, but
I think to just write off Brithenig as a bogolang is unjust.
> Of course, neither Brithenig nor Breathanach apply the
> sound changes of Welsh and Irish, respectively, without
> any change - both adapt them to the phonology of Latin.
Brithenig is IMO more selective; altho it is guided by sound
changes that took place in the development of Welsh, it does
_not_ slavishly apply Welsh phonology to Vulgar Latin.
[snip]
>
> We have discussed the plausibility of Brithenig a few
> months ago in this list; our preliminary result was that
> a different outcome is more likely.
We have indeed - I think it's been discussed more than once.
My own view of the plausibility or otherwise of Brithenig
is not based on its phonology. It is based on quite
different considerations:
http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Britannic/index.html
======================================================
On 10/06/2013 17:25, Alex Fink wrote:
[snip]
> Breathanach was more slapdash, as witnessed by Geoff
> Eddy's statement that he's used classical Latin 'cause
> he couldn't be bothered to find resources for the
> vulgar;
Apply phonology of language A to language B, when I really
ought to have applied it to language C, but couldn't be
bothered. Now that really is bogus :)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language ⦠began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (66)
________________________________________________________________________
5.2. Re: Fiction & language families
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:57 pm ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
On Monday 10 June 2013 21:21:49 R A Brown wrote:
> On 10/06/2013 12:23, Js Bangs wrote:
> >> Whether other such fictional Romancelangs are equally
> >> as credible is another matter Breathanach, Judajca,
> >> Ãrjótrunn, Wenedyk and Xliponian. These IMO go beyond
> >>
> >> Brithenig into the realm of 'bogolangs' - but I guess
> >> within their own _fictional_ worlds they are
> >>
> >> Romancelangs, however implausible one may regard them.
> >
> > Is there some misunderstanding of terminology here? I
> > understood the term "bogolang" to refer to any a
> > posteriori conlang created by applying the sound changes
> >
> > and phonology of one language to a different parent
> >
> > language.
>
> That is correct. Also note that I did not say that those
> languages are outright bogolangs; I said that in my opinion
> they stray further into bologlangery than Brithenig.
Yes. Brithenig looks like something obtained by applying the
sound changes of Welsh to Latin *at first glance*, while in
reality, it is more complex. But most of those that tried to
imitate it actually pretty much fell back to bogolanging.
> > It is not meant as a judgement on the plausibility or
> > design of such language.
>
> The plausibility remark was not just on the question of
> bogolangery; it is also on the plausibility of quite so many
> different Romancelangs developing within this small island
> on which I live, and in some other places where the Romans
> never went in *this* world.
Right; *that* is the problem. How, for instance, do you get
a Romance language in Poland when the Vistula River was merely
a distant rumor to the Romans? You'd need to alter history
to the point that not only Varus defeated Arminius at
"Teutoburgensis Saltus" (wherever that may have been), but
the Romans managed to advance even further at least to the
Vistula; but then you'd not only get a Romance language in
Germany (which Ill Bethisad doesn't have), but derail European
history to such a large degree that nothing recognizably
similar to the nations we now have *here* could have cropped
up! There simply is no way of installing a Romance language
in a Poland that is otherwise still recognizable as Poland.
(And then the "Polish" Romance would rather be influenced by
East Germanic than West Slavic as the Slavs moved into what is
now Poland only after 200 AD. In Roman times, what is now
Poland was just the eastern part of Germania Magma, with East
Germanic languages being spoken there.)
> > By this definition, Brithenig is a bogolang just as much
> > as any of the others,
>
> IMO this is incorrect.
>
> It is not simply an application of Welsh phonology to
> Vulgar Latin, otherwise it would, in fact, be a bit
> different from what it is. I am not aware of all that went
> on in the development of Brithenig, but I did correspond
> with Andrew during the latter stages of its development.
> Altho unquestionably there are bogolangish elements, it is
> not in my opinion a bogolang.
Sure. You certainly know much more about the making of
Brithenig than I will ever know; also, I know very little
about Welsh and thus cannot say to which degree the GMP of
Brithenig corresponds to the sound changes from Common
British to Welsh.
> > and I'm surprised to see you making a distinction here.
>
> As I say, if Brithenig was a "proper" bogolang, it would be
> different from what it actually is.
Yes.
> > (I hate the term "bogolang", but it seems to have stuck,
> >
> > alas.)
>
> I don't like the term either, but no one has come up with
> any better one that has caught on.
I have proposed "graftlang", but that hasn't caught on yet.
> ==========================================================
>
> On 10/06/2013 16:27, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Right. We have discussed in the past whether Brithenig
> > is a "bogolang" or not. As far as I can recall, the term
> > was coined by Geoff Eddy (the author of Breathanach) for
> > an a posteriori conlang created by applying sound changes
> > of one language A to another language B, with some
> > adaptations as necessary to account for the differences
> > in phonology between language A and language B. He named
> > Brithenig and his own Breathanach as examples, if I
> > remember correctly.
>
> If so, I do not dispute its application to Breathanach, but
> I think to just write off Brithenig as a bogolang is unjust.
It is indeed unjust. But *I* don't claim that Brithenig was
a bogolang; *Geoff Eddy* did. To quote from his page on
"historical bogo-linguistics":
"The original and best example of HBL is Brithenig, which
treats Latin as if it were Welsh; it's also part of a very
convincing alternate timeline. In the same conworld are Kernu
(Latin-as-Cornish), for which I am not aware of a Web presence,
and my own Breathanach, which was inspired by Brithenig and
develops Latin along the lines of Gaelic. There are also at
least three Latin-to-Slavonic conlangs: Wenedyk, its close
relative Slezan, and the currently rather less detailed
Slvanjec."
(Source: http://jc.tech-galaxy.com/bricka/bogo_linguistics.html )
Of course, Geoff is mistaken here; he probably never analyzed
Brithenig deeply enough to know that it there is more to it
than just applying Welsh sound changes to Latin!
> > Of course, neither Brithenig nor Breathanach apply the
> > sound changes of Welsh and Irish, respectively, without
> > any change - both adapt them to the phonology of Latin.
>
> Brithenig is IMO more selective; altho it is guided by sound
> changes that took place in the development of Welsh, it does
> _not_ slavishly apply Welsh phonology to Vulgar Latin.
I take your word on this.
> [snip]
>
> > We have discussed the plausibility of Brithenig a few
> > months ago in this list; our preliminary result was that
> >
> > a different outcome is more likely.
>
> We have indeed - I think it's been discussed more than once.
> My own view of the plausibility or otherwise of Brithenig
> is not based on its phonology. It is based on quite
> different considerations:
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Britannic/index.html
Yep. I am looking forward to what you will produce.
> ======================================================
>
> On 10/06/2013 17:25, Alex Fink wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Breathanach was more slapdash, as witnessed by Geoff
> > Eddy's statement that he's used classical Latin 'cause
> > he couldn't be bothered to find resources for the
> > vulgar;
>
> Apply phonology of language A to language B, when I really
> ought to have applied it to language C, but couldn't be
> bothered. Now that really is bogus :)
Yes, that indeed is bogus.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Ãam, a Ãam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Ãamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (66)
________________________________________________________________________
5.3. Re: Fiction & language families
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:08 pm ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 6/10/13, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > (I hate the term "bogolang", but it seems to have stuck,
> > > alas.)
> >
> > I don't like the term either, but no one has come up with
> > any better one that has caught on.
>
> I have proposed "graftlang", but that hasn't caught on yet.
I think this term makes sense and will use that in preference to "bogolang".
> To quote from his page on "historical bogo-linguistics":
>
> "The original and best example of HBL is Brithenig, which
> treats Latin as if it were Welsh; it's also part of a very
> convincing alternate timeline. In the same conworld are
> Kernu (Latin-as-Cornish), for which I am not aware of a Web
> presence, and my own Breathanach, which was inspired by Brithenig and
> develops Latin along the lines of Gaelic. There are also at
> least three Latin-to-Slavonic conlangs: Wenedyk, its close
> relative Slezan, and the currently rather less detailed Slvanjec."
>
> (Source: http://jc.tech-galaxy.com/bricka/bogo_linguistics.html
> )
>
> Of course, Geoff is mistaken here; he probably never analyzed
> Brithenig deeply enough to know that it there is more to it
> than just applying Welsh sound changes to Latin!
For what little it's worth, also mistaken that Kerno is simply "Latin-
as-Cornish". It really bears little or no similarity to the Cornish
language. And for that matter, bears little similarity to Latin... It
doesn't follow Cornish phonology or sound changes -- so no graftlangery
there! -- nor the grammar. It does descend from a couple earlier
(and even more horrible) graftlangs, though.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (66)
________________________________________________________________________
5.4. Re: Fiction & language families
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:07 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 6/10/13, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > (I hate the term "bogolang", but it seems to have stuck,
> > > > alas.)
> > >
> > > I don't like the term either, but no one has come up with
> > > any better one that has caught on.
> >
> > I have proposed "graftlang", but that hasn't caught on yet.
>
> I think this term makes sense and will use that in preference to
> "bogolang".
>
>
I can't help thinking of graft as in bribery and official corruption when I
hear this term. I'm supposing that the intent is graft as in grafting
trees or vines. But some how I can't get my mind to want to go there.
Adam
Messages in this topic (66)
________________________________________________________________________
5.5. Re: Fiction & language families
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:32 pm ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 6/10/13, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > (I hate the term "bogolang", but it seems to have stuck,
> > > > > alas.)
> > > >
> > > > I don't like the term either, but no one has come up with
> > > > any better one that has caught on.
> > >
> > > I have proposed "graftlang", but that hasn't caught on yet.
> >
> > I think this term makes sense and will use that in preference to
> > "bogolang".
> >
> >
> I can't help thinking of graft as in bribery and official
> corruption when I hear this term. I'm supposing that the intent is graft
> as in grafting trees or vines. But some how I can't get my mind to
> want to go there.
Thank you very much for ruining yet another bit of conlinguistatorial
terminology for me! :/
Padraic
>
> Adam
>
Messages in this topic (66)
________________________________________________________________________
5.6. Re: Fiction & language families
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:42 pm ((PDT))
'Tis but one o' me lessr services. *tips cap*
Adam
On 6/10/13, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 6/10/13, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > > > > (I hate the term "bogolang", but it seems to have stuck,
>> > > > > alas.)
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't like the term either, but no one has come up with
>> > > > any better one that has caught on.
>> > >
>> > > I have proposed "graftlang", but that hasn't caught on yet.
>> >
>> > I think this term makes sense and will use that in preference to
>> > "bogolang".
>> >
>> >
>> I can't help thinking of graft as in bribery and official
>> corruption when I hear this term. I'm supposing that the intent is graft
>> as in grafting trees or vines. But some how I can't get my mind to
>> want to go there.
>
> Thank you very much for ruining yet another bit of conlinguistatorial
> terminology for me! :/
>
> Padraic
>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>
Messages in this topic (66)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
