aelf's scratchpad

[Ælfwine]

Hello, its Aelf again everyone's favorite resident Germanophile and lover of a posteriori conlangs. I have some extra time recently and so I decided to toy again with conlanging. So following many others here I decided to make a scratchpad where I can experiment and share some of the ideas I come up with. Because its a scratchpad the writing style will be a bit loose and informal (at least for me). Nor is it meant to show anything complete or final but just mostly ideas floating around in my head.

Right now I am back to working on my old Crimean Gothic language, trying to reboot it. This time though I wanted it to look less influenced by Low German and a bit more conservative in form. I imagine the language would have been influenced by the many other languages in its vicinity, namely Crimean Tatar, Ossetian, Hungarian, Greek, Russian, but to name a few. Likewise I have taken something from every language mentioned. I've renamed the language "Mariupol Gothic" to differentiate it from other Gothlangs (many of which are called "modern gothic" or something). It's also a slight change in history: the Goths of the Crimea survived, but followed the Greeks to Mariupol at the behest of Catharine the Great.

[Ælfwine]

I starting declining verbs in Mariupol Gothic and got some interesting results. Here's an example of an infinitive.

Slight orthographical notes: <ѱ> is /θ/. In my romanization ь is written <e> and ъ is written <a>. <e> or <ь> causes the previous consonant to palatalize: /ɣ/ becomes [ʝ] and /x/ becomes [ç]. Palatalization here creates an interesting paradigm where the consonants in the stem alternate between ç~x~ɣ~ʝ. The infinitive and subjunctive present have merged, but the preterite remains distinctive.

Infinitive: лахьн lahen "to laugh"

Indicative Present:

1S: лахь lahe [ˈlaçə]
2S: лахьс lahes [ˈlaçəs]
3S: лахь lahe [ˈlaçə]

1P: лахьм lahem [ˈlaçəm]
2P: лахьѱ laheþ [ˈlaçəθ]
3P: лахьн lahen [ˈlaçən]

Indicative Past:

1S: лух lūh [ˈluːx]
2S: лухт lūht [ˈluːxt]
3S: лух lūh [ˈluːx]

1P: лугъм lūgam [ˈluːɣəm]
2P: лугъѱ lūgaþ [ˈluːɣəθ]
3P: лугън lūgan [ˈluːɣən]

Subjunctive Present:

1S: лахь lahe [ˈlaçə]
2S: лахьс lahes [ˈlaçəs]
3S: лахь lahe [ˈlaçə]

1P: лахьм lahem [ˈlaçəm]
2P: лахьѱ laheþ [ˈlaçəθ]
3P: лахьн lahen [ˈlaçən]

Subjunctive Past:

1S: лугь lūge [ˈluːʝə]
2S: лугьс lūges [ˈluːʝəs]
3S: лугь lūge [ˈluːʝə]

1P: лугьм lūgem [ˈluːʝəm]
2P: лугьѱ lūgeþ [ˈluːʝəθ]
3P: лугьн lūgen [ˈluːʝən]

I know /ç/ and /ʝ/ are relatively rare phonemes, but they carry some functional load at least here in Mariupol Gothic. Alternatively, you could simply describe them as being soft pairs to /x/ and /ɣ/ — that is, /xʲ/ and /ɣʲ/. /ʝ/ also contrasts with /j/ in this language, though I imagine there'd be a modern tendency for speakers to merge the two.

[lurker]

Slight orthographical notes: <ѱ> is /θ/.

Why not use <ѳ> (fita) as it's based on theta?

[Ælfwine]

Slight orthographical notes: <ѱ> is /θ/.

Why not use <ѳ> (fita) as it's based on theta?

Fita isn't distinctive enough for me. It shares a glyph with barred oe. <ѱ> is very similar to Bib Got <𐌸> which in turn may derive from Greek psi. So using Cyrillic psi is a good substitution. Compare roughly how Icelandic and Old English adopted the letter <þ> from the runic alphabet. I also wanted to keep some flavor from Biblical Gothic in the script.

[Ælfwine]

I want to talk about Mariupol Gothic nouns, particularly its animacy system that I started to develop.

Anyway, brief explanation of the Mariupol Gothic cases before I move on to the good stuff. The nominative generally marks the subject of a sentence. The accusative marks the direct or indirect object. Finally, the genitive indicates ownership, or that something or someone is an owner. I had also thought of developing a vocative case, though I'm not entirely sure if its an areal feature in the Crimea like it is in the Balkans.

Under Greek influence, the Proto-Germanic dative (and instrumental) was lost, leaving only the nominative, accusative and genitive cases. Then later under Slavic influence, the genitive was either merged with the accusative (in animate nouns), or the accusative was merged with the nominative (in inanimate nouns, although a lot of formerly weak nouns had already merged these two cases.) In those words the distinction between strong and weak simply shifted to become a distinction between animate and inanimate, although a lot of previously "weak" nouns had become "strong" (and vice-versa).

Anyway, let's take a look at an animate noun, вулфс "wolf":

Code: Select all

	S   	 P
NOM: vulfs    vulvus
ACC: vulf    vulvăns
GEN: vulf    vulvăns

Now lets take a look at an inanimate noun, минъ "moon":

Code: Select all

	S	P
NOM: mīnă	mīnăns
ACC: mīnă	mīnăns
GEN: mīnăns	mīni

Like Russian and Ukrainian, Mariupol Gothic merges the nominative and accusative of its inanimate nouns while keeping the genitive distinct. Likewise, in animate nouns the genitive instead merges with the accusative. (Apparently both Russian and Ukrainian consider the moon "inanimate," though they have different words for it: луна and місяць respectively.)

[Ælfwine]

The Mariupolian Gothic perfective (perfect aspect) is marked with the prefix гъ gă /ɦə/. It's use mimics the Russian по prefix.

Example: гънемън gănemăn /ɦəˈne.mən/, "to have take" or glossed more appropriately, PRF-take-INF.

I have a lot more to say about this, but i need to do a bit more research. However my goal is to create an aspectual system whose early influences were Greek and Iranic (Ossetian) and later Slavic.

[spanick]

I’m really enjoying this Gothic language and I’m excited to see what you do with the aspectual system. I did something similar with Gutisk (viewtopic.php?p=254551#p254551) but I must admit I had difficulty actually utilizing it much in practice.

[Ælfwine]

I’m really enjoying this Gothic language and I’m excited to see what you do with the aspectual system. I did something similar with Gutisk (viewtopic.php?p=254551#p254551) but I must admit I had difficulty actually utilizing it much in practice.

Thanks Spanick! I really liked Gotski a lot!

It's probably hard to utilize it cause we speakers of English do not distinguish the perfective. The best way to describe it is distinguishes a verb as part of a completed whole, rather than something that unfolds into being.

For this language I imagine the imperfect would simply be left unmarked (like Gotski).

If I'm understanding it correctly, the difference between a word like (єс) гъбруки (găbruki) (he) enjoyed, as opposed to say бруки enjoy-2P.PST which possibly means the process of enjoyment has not been fulfilled, even though it occurred, if that makes any sense (maybe it doesn't work for this type of word?)

[Ælfwine]

I ate from an Italian restaurant and now I want to make a romlang again.

Thinking of rebooting the Pannonian language I had years back. The Pannonian area has an interesting opportunity for a romlang — it was Romance speaking up until about ca. 400 when it succumbed to outside invasion. Linguistically it could build a "bridge" between East and West Romance (Central Romance?) Early influences would be undoubtedly Slavic and Germanic, and then Hungarian.

Ideas for sound changes. Will expand later.

a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː > a a ɛ e e i ɔ o o u

'ɛ 'ɔ > iɛ uɔ (early breaking)

a > æ

k > tʃ / _e,i
g > dʒ / _e,i
k g > c ɟ / _æ

s > ʃ
tʃ > s
dʒ > z
c > t͡ʃ
ɟ > d͡ʒ

i u > ∅ / -unstressed
e o > i u / -unstressed
æ > e / -unstressed

[Arayaz]

s > ʃ
tʃ > s

Huh? Doesn't t͡ʃ → s usually happen by t͡ʃ → ʃ → s? How would that co-occur with s → ʃ?
Or would this be by t͡ʃ → t͡s → s? I still wouldn't buy t͡ʃ → t͡s but s → ʃ.

In fact, s → ʃ ubiquitously feels weird. But is that a Hungarian thing?

[Ælfwine]

s > ʃ
tʃ > s

Huh? Doesn't t͡ʃ → s usually happen by t͡ʃ → ʃ → s? How would that co-occur with s → ʃ?
Or would this be by t͡ʃ → t͡s → s? I still wouldn't buy t͡ʃ → t͡s but s → ʃ.

In fact, s → ʃ ubiquitously feels weird. But is that a Hungarian thing?

It is a Hungarian thing, yes. Its why <s> is /ʃ/ Probably at one point this phoneme was apical, i.e. [s̺]. According to Wiki, "In the Middle Ages, it occurred in a wider area, covering Romance languages spoken throughout France, Portugal, and Spain, as well as Old High German and Middle High German." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voicele ... d_sibilant)

Also IIRC tʃ > s is attested. And not unbelievable to me as part of a pull-chain shift to simplify it to /s/. Of course I can also do tʃ > ts > s, if this is better. This shift is already attested in some romance languages anyway.

[Arayaz]

It is a Hungarian thing, yes. Its why <s> is /ʃ/ Probably at one point this phoneme was apical, i.e. [s̺]. According to Wiki, "In the Middle Ages, it occurred in a wider area, covering Romance languages spoken throughout France, Portugal, and Spain, as well as Old High German and Middle High German." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voicele ... d_sibilant)

Gotcha. Probably should've guessed due to the <s> /ʃ/ thing; I always thought that was just a weird spelling choice.

Also IIRC tʃ > s is attested. And not unbelievable to me as part of a pull-chain shift to simplify it to /s/. Of course I can also do tʃ > ts > s, if this is better. This shift is already attested in some romance languages anyway.

I know it's attested, but having t͡ʃ → t͡s (depalatalization) and then going right around to s → ʃ (the opposite direction) rubs me the wrong way a bit.

[Ælfwine]

It is a Hungarian thing, yes. Its why <s> is /ʃ/ Probably at one point this phoneme was apical, i.e. [s̺]. According to Wiki, "In the Middle Ages, it occurred in a wider area, covering Romance languages spoken throughout France, Portugal, and Spain, as well as Old High German and Middle High German." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voicele ... d_sibilant)

Gotcha. Probably should've guessed due to the <s> /ʃ/ thing; I always thought that was just a weird spelling choice.

Also IIRC tʃ > s is attested. And not unbelievable to me as part of a pull-chain shift to simplify it to /s/. Of course I can also do tʃ > ts > s, if this is better. This shift is already attested in some romance languages anyway.

I know it's attested, but having t͡ʃ → t͡s (depalatalization) and then going right around to s → ʃ (the opposite direction) rubs me the wrong way a bit.

Right, but the depalatalized form t͡s doesn't have to be similar to apical s̺. It could have become dental (like Spanish) and therefore have easily shifted to a dental s remaining distinct from s̺. This was in fact the case for many medieval SAE languages.

[Arayaz]

It is a Hungarian thing, yes. Its why <s> is /ʃ/ Probably at one point this phoneme was apical, i.e. [s̺]. According to Wiki, "In the Middle Ages, it occurred in a wider area, covering Romance languages spoken throughout France, Portugal, and Spain, as well as Old High German and Middle High German." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voicele ... d_sibilant)

Gotcha. Probably should've guessed due to the <s> /ʃ/ thing; I always thought that was just a weird spelling choice.

Also IIRC tʃ > s is attested. And not unbelievable to me as part of a pull-chain shift to simplify it to /s/. Of course I can also do tʃ > ts > s, if this is better. This shift is already attested in some romance languages anyway.

I know it's attested, but having t͡ʃ → t͡s (depalatalization) and then going right around to s → ʃ (the opposite direction) rubs me the wrong way a bit.

Right, but the depalatalized form t͡s doesn't have to be similar to apical s̺. It could have become dental (like Spanish) and therefore have easily shifted to a dental s remaining distinct from s̺. This was in fact the case for many medieval SAE languages.

Alright, that works. Sorry to bother you.

[Ælfwine]

It is a Hungarian thing, yes. Its why <s> is /ʃ/ Probably at one point this phoneme was apical, i.e. [s̺]. According to Wiki, "In the Middle Ages, it occurred in a wider area, covering Romance languages spoken throughout France, Portugal, and Spain, as well as Old High German and Middle High German." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voicele ... d_sibilant)

Gotcha. Probably should've guessed due to the <s> /ʃ/ thing; I always thought that was just a weird spelling choice.

Also IIRC tʃ > s is attested. And not unbelievable to me as part of a pull-chain shift to simplify it to /s/. Of course I can also do tʃ > ts > s, if this is better. This shift is already attested in some romance languages anyway.

I know it's attested, but having t͡ʃ → t͡s (depalatalization) and then going right around to s → ʃ (the opposite direction) rubs me the wrong way a bit.

Right, but the depalatalized form t͡s doesn't have to be similar to apical s̺. It could have become dental (like Spanish) and therefore have easily shifted to a dental s remaining distinct from s̺. This was in fact the case for many medieval SAE languages.

Alright, that works. Sorry to bother you.

Don't feel sorry. I'd rather have commentary like this than just me. And if someone learns something its productive!

Anyway some more ideas:

/nn/ and /ll/ palatalize to /ɲ/ and /ʎ/ respectively (written <ny> and <ly> like in Hungarian and Spanish.)

This language will follow other non French Gallo-Romance where breaking and diphthongization are concerned. I do think it will probably innovate vowel length, like Furlani. Likewise I believe front rounded vowels are a possibility.