Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

zyma · Post by **zyma** » 13 Oct 2015 06:20

Daedolon wrote: Čop's Law is a rule in Luwian where a short accented vowel geminated the following consonant, if it was intervocalic. I "robed" this rule for Guesque, its up there in the "PRE-BASQUE to GUESQUE", and you can see it working stem like I-stem where the only difference between the rhizotonic and oxytonic subdeclension in the allative is that the rhizotonic has a short /z/ while the oxytonic has a long /zː/. But putting all the "blame" Čop's Law is erroneous, I think I just expressed myself badly up there.

Ahh, thank you for the explanation. I think you expressed what you wanted to say just fine; the only reason it wasn't 100% clear to me was that Čop's Law, for whatever reason, isn't easy to find information about on Google.

Daedolon wrote:Guesque lacks a native script and utilizes the Euboean script with some modifications.

/m mː n nː/ <μ μμ ν νν>
/b bː t tː d dː k kː g gː/ <π β θ τ δ δδ ψ κ γ ϙ>
/ts tsː dz dzː/ <χ χχ ζ ζζ>
/s sː z zː/ <σ σσ ϻ ϻϻ>
/r rː l lː/ <η ρ λ λλ>
/j w/ <ι ϝ>

/i u e o a/ <ι υ ε ο α>
/iː uː eː oː aː/ <ιι υυ εε οο αα>

<ϙεσψ> /gːesk/, Guesque

That's awesome! Are capital letters utilized in some cases? Is the direction in which Guesque is written any different from the directions in which surrounding languages are written? Word-finally, are <σ σσ> realized as <ς ςς> or <ς σς>, or do they not change "form", so to speak?

Daedolon · Post by **Daedolon** » 14 Oct 2015 20:20

There was two primary ways through which Guesque was expressed: "Priestly" and "Common".

The earliest "Priestly" abecedarium dates to 700 BC, it was used for writing administrative documents, accounts, legal texts, as well as mathematical, medical, literary, and religious texts. After 300 BC, the alphabet evolved, adjusting to the phonology of the Guesque language, and the "Common" script was the result of it. "Common" was mainly used to write letters, documents and other types of everyday writing. "Common" started to effectively replace "Priestly" after 100 BC, but "Priestly" survived in religious texts and in some more rustic regions of the Guesque homeland until 500 AD.

"Common" was not a internal development of Guesque, it was highly influenced, based and made through continuous contacts with the Greeks, Etruscans and italic peoples over time.

"Priestly"

Spoiler:

The other letters that were not used in writing were kept and used as numerals, as in most other non-Greek languages using the Greek script. It was common for the glides /j, w/ to not be expressed in writing, voiceless/aspirate greek letters were constantly confused for one another, and the Guesque writers didn't consistently represented vowel and consonant length.

Common

Spoiler:

The differences in the script are pretty straightforward, (nearly) all the aspirate consonants were ditched alongside letters representing phonemes nonexistent in Guesque. The long phonemes were represented by doubling the letter, a practice that was used inconsistently during the usage of the "Priestly" script.
The <φ> was used to represent the glide /j/, in a somewhat similar way to how the romans adapted <ϝ> to represent /f/.

shimobaatar wrote: Is the direction in which Guesque is written any different from the directions in which surrounding languages are written?

During the usage of the "Priestly" script the direction of writing was free, but in "Common" it is mostly written from left to right, just like how Etruscans did.

shimobaatar wrote: Word-finally, are <σ σσ> realized as <ς ςς> or <ς σς>, or do they not change "form", so to speak?

They don't change form.

zyma · Post by **zyma** » 16 Oct 2015 04:14

Daedolon wrote: The earliest "Priestly" abecedarium dates to 700 BC, it was used for writing administrative documents, accounts, legal texts, as well as mathematical, medical, literary, and religious texts. After 300 BC, the alphabet evolved, adjusting to the phonology of the Guesque language, and the "Common" script was the result of it. "Common" was mainly used to write letters, documents and other types of everyday writing. "Common" started to effectively replace "Priestly" after 100 BC, but "Priestly" survived in religious texts and in some more rustic regions of the Guesque homeland until 500 AD.

Daedolon wrote: The other letters that were not used in writing were kept and used as numerals, as in most other non-Greek languages using the Greek script. It was common for the glides /j, w/ to not be expressed in writing, voiceless/aspirate greek letters were constantly confused for one another, and the Guesque writers didn't consistently represented vowel and consonant length.

Daedolon wrote: The differences in the script are pretty straightforward, (nearly) all the aspirate consonants were ditched alongside letters representing phonemes nonexistent in Guesque. The long phonemes were represented by doubling the letter, a practice that was used inconsistently during the usage of the "Priestly" script.
The <φ> was used to represent the glide /j/, in a somewhat similar way to how the romans adapted <ϝ> to represent /f/.

This is all really cool, and clearly well thought out. At least in my opinion, this "feels" like it could be a description of a natural language's orthographic history.

Daedolon · Post by **Daedolon** » 25 Oct 2015 02:53

Pronominal Morphology

The pronouns are a lot more irregular than the nouns were.

Personal Pronouns

As in most other IE languages, the personal pronouns in the first and second person are preserved, but the third person ones came from demonstratives.

The personal pronouns differentiate three persons (1st, 2nd and 3rd) and two numbers (singular and plural). No gender distinction.

First Person Singular

Spoiler:

Second Person Singular

Spoiler:

First Person Plural

Spoiler:

Second Person Plural

Spoiler:

The nominative of the enclitic form, in all cases, is by analogy.

Here are the third-person pronouns. In the singular, it had a standard form derived usually from *is/im/es-, and there is no enclitic form for them.

Third Person Singular

Spoiler:

Third Person Plural

Spoiler:

The reflexive pronoun is numberless and has no nominative as well:

Spoiler:

That's it for now

Ahzoh · Post by **Ahzoh** » 25 Oct 2015 02:59

Regarding the title... was it intended to be a portmanteau of "guess" and "Basque"?

Daedolon · Post by **Daedolon** » 25 Oct 2015 02:07

Ahzoh wrote:Regarding the title... was it intended to be a portmanteau of "guess" and "Basque"?

No, the name came from *tewtéh₂ + *iskos which became /gːesk/, so I though about how the romans, and later the portuguese, would loan the word which led to guesque. This was way before choosing to "follow" Basque, and so since there I changed some sound rules it should actually be /gːaʣː/ instead. But I liked it and then I decided to keep it anyway.

zyma · Post by **zyma** » 29 Oct 2015 01:18

Daedolon wrote: As in most other IE languages, the personal pronouns in the first and second person are preserved, but the third person ones came from demonstratives.

The personal pronouns differentiate three persons (1st, 2nd and 3rd) and two numbers (singular and plural). No gender distinction.

They look good to me.

Daedolon wrote: The nominative of the enclitic form, in all cases, is by analogy.

If you don't mind my asking, what specifically are the usages of the pronouns' enclitic forms?

Daedolon · Post by **Daedolon** » 11 Nov 2015 06:24

Definite Article

The definite article is derived from *so. No gender, number singular or plural.

Singular Definite Article

Spoiler:

Plural Definite Article

Spoiler:

Interrogative Pronoun

The interrogative pronoun is derived from *kʷis. No gender, number singular or plural.

Spoiler:

shimobaatar wrote: If you don't mind my asking, what specifically are the usages of the pronouns' enclitic forms?

Usage? In Guesque or in PIE?

Daedolon · Post by **Daedolon** » 14 Dec 2015 02:11

VERBS

Guesque, following Forni's hypothesis about Basque, is a member of the Italo-Celtic family which brings forth some considerations.

The ā-subjunctive, the r-passive and the collapsing of the PIE aorist and perfect into a single past tense.

And I desired to have the following:

A Indicative with past perfect, past imperfect, past pluperfect, present and future. A subjunctive with past, present and future. A simple conditional, imperative, participle and infinitive. Only active voice.

To achieve them I thought this:

The past pluperfect is achieved through the suffixation of *steh₂- to the past imperfect of the verb
The indicative future is achieved through the suffixation of *bʰuh₂- to the indicative present imperfect of the verb, and the subjunctive present + *bʰuh₂- is used for the subjunctive future.

The subjunctive became conditional and optative became subjunctive.
I have no idea on how to get a infinitive . . .

The Cowgill-Rix system was heavily simplified, so basically all verbs became thematic (some survived as irregulars) and the "standard" for the past tense is the sigmatic aorist/perfect.

So, that was my idea. I would really enjoy a feedback on it, specially due my rather basic understading of the Cowgill-Rix system.

zyma · Post by **zyma** » 12 Jul 2016 00:55

Daedolon wrote: I have no idea on how to get a infinitive . . .

How did infinitives arise in Italo-Celtic natlangs?

Daedolon wrote: So, that was my idea. I would really enjoy a feedback on it, specially due my rather basic understading of the Cowgill-Rix system.

Nothing stands out to me as blatantly incorrect or anything like that, but I too have quite a basic understanding of the system in question.

markski · Post by **markski** » 12 Jul 2016 14:53

shimobaatar wrote:
Daedolon wrote: I have no idea on how to get a infinitive . . .
How did infinitives arise in Italo-Celtic natlangs?

Latin used a suffix *-se (which later rhotacized to -re), Sabellic languages have -fi- from PIE *-dhy-, and -om. I'm not sure what the etymology of *-se or *dhy is but *-om looks like some sort of abstract noun suffix. As far as I can tell Celtic languages never developed an infinitive.

zyma · Post by **zyma** » 12 Jul 2016 17:31

markski wrote:
shimobaatar wrote:
Daedolon wrote: I have no idea on how to get a infinitive . . .
How did infinitives arise in Italo-Celtic natlangs?
Latin used a suffix *-se (which later rhotacized to -re), Sabellic languages have -fi- from PIE *-dhy-, and -om. I'm not sure what the etymology of *-se or *dhy is but *-om looks like some sort of abstract noun suffix. As far as I can tell Celtic languages never developed an infinitive.

I'd recommend taking one of the routes described here, then, or looking into how other languages have developed infinitives if you wouldn't mind taking a non-Italo-Celtic route.

The CBB

Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad

Re: Guesque, PIE conlang scratchpad