Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 21, 2019 17:54:58 GMT -6
Okay. I'm Minister of Culture again and I'm going to make this happen.
I call a conclave of all Talossan-speakers and all those interested in the future of ár glheþ naziunál to put forward their ideas of where we go from here re: the CÚG having ground to a halt.
Start discussion here, now.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 23, 2019 17:57:18 GMT -6
Okay, I'll start. The CÚG has ceased to function; the Ladîntsch Naziunál, Sir C. M. Siervicül, has (according to rumour) pulled out of active Talossanity altogether, leaving the final step in orthographical reunision unfinished. As Culture Minister, I am officially declaring my intention to legislative declare the current CÚG null and void; and to create a new body to take over its functions. As to orthographical reunision, I offer the following compromise, get in my face and tell me I'm wrong: This is put up in the spirit of "if no-one has any better ideas, then this will at least solve the last piece of orthographic reunision". QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on Apr 24, 2019 1:51:23 GMT -6
This is so arbitrary though... what about the prefix in- that doesnt signify negation? Why would dîn retain that vowel but not regular în? The rule you suggested would leave the suffix -ind hat-less, isnt that a problem? I will stand by my original suggestion:
The reason why /i/ is explicitly excluded is that /i/ before a nasal is allophonically pronounced like Î, which makes the diacritic superfluous.
so, that would mean that e.g. dînt (< dentem), tîmp (< tempus), avînt (< ab ante) as well as the suffixes -înd (< -antem) and -mînt (< -mente) would get Î, but inalt (< in alto), in (< in) etc. etc. would not. To make the job of researching the etymologies easier, we could also say that Î in any non-Latin word is respelled as I by default, since the rule only cares about the Latin vowel. Thoughts?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 24, 2019 15:45:35 GMT -6
This is so arbitrary though... what about the prefix in- that doesnt signify negation? Why would dîn retain that vowel but not regular în? The rule you suggested would leave the suffix -ind hat-less, isnt that a problem? I will stand by my original suggestion:
The reason why /i/ is explicitly excluded is that /i/ before a nasal is allophonically pronounced like Î, which makes the diacritic superfluous.
so, that would mean that e.g. dînt (< dentem), tîmp (< tempus), avînt (< ab ante) as well as the suffixes -înd (< -antem) and -mînt (< -mente) would get Î, but inalt (< in alto), in (< in) etc. etc. would not. To make the job of researching the etymologies easier, we could also say that Î in any non-Latin word is respelled as I by default, since the rule only cares about the Latin vowel. Thoughts?
I'm more than happy to do it that way too. Just as long as someone does it. If we endorse your approach, does that mean you volunteer to do the work to make it happen? That's the crucial issue at this point.
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on Apr 25, 2019 7:16:13 GMT -6
I've started working on it a bit. No guarantees though.
Here's a link to the Google Spreadsheet. Help is appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Tomás Gariçéir on May 2, 2019 6:51:01 GMT -6
Azul — long time no see. Miestrâ invited me to come over and join the discussion. She told me that as Minister of Culture, she wants to bring the maximum number of Talossan language enthusiasts together, including possibly bringing me back into the fold. I have to honestly say that I'm not sure it's possible, given that the language has been taken in rather the opposite direction that I'd have gone with it over the last dozen or so years, but since Miestrâ took the step of reaching out to me, I figured it couldn't hurt to explain where I'm coming from and what I'd have desired for the language, to see what common ground might be reached.
My dream scenario, of course, would be a re-reform: to go back to Talossan as it was prior to your reforms of 2005-2007, and start the reforms over, with my input (at the risk of sounding full of myself). I realize this is not likely to happen, as there's a generation of Ladintschen who learned the language post-reform and only know it in that form. To those Ladintschen, this would probably seem like going backwards and undoing progress. Although this is likely to be unpersuasive, I can only offer the following, genuinely heartfealt justification. I was the first Talossan to be drawn to the country by the language, rather than the political side of micronationhood. It was the sound and look and feel of the language, in all its quirky and eccentric glory, that won my heart. I became close friends with the man who created it, and we discussed everything about it in depth, for years. We had very common (though by no means identical) tastes in terms of the feel and personality and character of the language, and the direction it should move in (or be nudged toward).
I don't want to rehash this too much, but the reforms of 2007 stripped a great deal of that look and feel and character away. While I've never doubted the enthusiasm for the language of the Talossans who carried out these reforms, I truly believe that the reforms chosen and enacted arose out of their not having that years-long deep connection with the language and its creator, and thus not having a deep enough understanding of the aesthetics and character of the language, or the direction it should go in. Simply not having the experience or the innate feeling to say "no, that doesn't feel right" or "that's too far, let's see if we can come up with a more moderate proposal here". I do partially blame myself for this, as I was too emotionally wounded by the dissolution of the Talossa I knew and the relationships forged in it to be able to participate and be that guiding influence at the time.
So if anyone would actually consider going that route with my involvement, you'd bring enormous joy to a bitter old exile's heart.
All that said, Miestrâ said anything and everything is up for discussion, so since this will be long, i'll break it up across a couple of further posts.
|
|
|
Post by Tomás Gariçéir on May 2, 2019 6:53:34 GMT -6
As far as sounds go, the vowel /ɨ/ (i.e. î) is a common and very characteristic sound of Talossan. Spoken Talossan sounds wrong without it. There's definitely work to do and discussion to be had around where and when it occcurs. Ben and I had some lengthy discussions about this back in the day. At one point he wondered if /ɨ/ was just an allphone of /i/ before /n/ — in other words, if î only occurs in în, and if this always occurs instead of in) - and therefore was the separate letter î necessary if this was a predicatbel pronunciation. After going through the dictionary, we decided that they were two distinct phonemes, as there are some (very few, but some) words containing î not followed by n, such as îrt, and there are also a good number of words with in that only felt right when pronounced with /i/, not /ɨ/. An allophonic rule would turn Ladintsch into "Ladîntsch", for example, which just doesn't work.
I think things I may have said in the past about Ben and I discussing whether to get rid of î were interpreted by some as referring to the sound, which was never the case. The question was only ever about the written representation of the sound.
So my position here is that there are definitely two distinct phonemes here, represented by two letters i and î. I do think there is some regularization and minor reform to be done, as when Ben added new vocabulary to the language, he (a) mostly didn't check to see whether there was already a word for that, he just added to the dictionary, resulting sometimes in synonyms dating from different time periods, and (b)he didn't go over and make older words conform to newer preferences. The lexicon of Talossan is a glorious testament to all the languages Ben was interested in or focuseed on at various points in his life (a list that was coincidentally incredibly similar to my own — he was definitely a linguistic soul mate, which no doubt reinforced our common vision for Talossan). The result of this where î is concerned is that you'll find dictionary entries like învís beside invít, or înperar but împeratôr. I favor going through the dictionary and regularizing all these words to one consistent pattern. I've also long favored replacing the negative prefix ûn- (from English) with în-/îm (from Latin), but Ben never went for that. I'd make that change though.
I also favor explicitly writing /ə/ as ë at the beginning or in the middle of any word, and as â in final position in feminine nouns and adjectives. As of the second edition of the Treisoûr, /a/ and /ə/ were considered distinct phonemes. I'd even go so far as to extend â to indicating /ə/ in final position anywhere, for example in third person singular verb forms, if others were in favor of that for the sake of consistency. I remain unconvinced that /ə/ is just an allophone of /a/ and /ɛ/, as for example â is always /ə/ while unstressed a can be either /a/ or /ə/ (a "tendency", not a rule), and the pronunciation rules in both editions of the Treisoûr don't mention /ə/ as a pronunciation of e at all (although it is transcribed as such in some places in the grammar – does this reflect older usage that changed?)
The other "problematic" vowels were å and û. I always found the sound /ʌ/, especially as a "short u", very Englishy and not very Romance. It's quite rare though; off the top of my head it occurs most commonly in the negative prefixûn- and the present tense form pût from the verb pëvarë. Å occurs only in very early words taken from Swedish, and in more recent vocabulary derived from Berber. The 2nd ed of the Treisoûr says that å /ɔ/ and o=/o/, but I don't think that's accurate. For me, and I think in Ben Madison's speech as well, o is closer to /ɔ/ and å ends up being some awkward low back vowel in the vicinity of /ɒ/, in an attempt to keep it distinct from o. I don't know that Ben would agree with me about this, but my current inclination is to simply treat å as an alternate spelling of o that only occurs in a small number of words of particular origin, and pronounce them both identically as /ɔ/.
In the case of the words with these two vowels, while part of me just wants to leave everything old as it is, and simply promote preferable alternatives not using them, I'd also be OK with making replacements here. I've already mentioned that I've long been in favor of replacing the prefix ûn- with în-/îm-. I personally tend to pronounce pût more like "pît" anyway (a similar sound, same vowel space, just with the tongue raised — high center instead of mid center). I'd vote for that. I'd be fine with generally replacing å with o if people prefer that, although I'm good with simply saying pronounce å like o in the fixed number of words that have it, and just don't use å anymore in any new vocabulary added to the language in the future.
TL;DR: î and ë/â have to stay, period. Talossan isn't Talossan without them. Å and û can go if need be.
|
|
|
Post by Tomás Gariçéir on May 2, 2019 7:08:05 GMT -6
About spelling and accents, the thing which I can't and won't ever let go of is that the large number of accents and discritics was always a fundamental, integral part of the feel and character and visial aesthetic of Talossan, from the very beginning. Forever and ever, amen. Again, that look and feel was a huge part of what drew me to the language and led me to become the first Talossan apart from Ben Madison to learn it to a decent level of fluency. Not that some minor reform and regularization wouldn't be useful. Ben and I had begun discussing how we might do that, although we dodn't get very far before things fell apart politically and that was that. But always, the guiding principle should be how to KEEP AS MANY DIACRITICS AS POSSIBLE while making the overall system a bit more regular and predictable. With apologies to those Ladintschen who only learned and know post-2007 Talossan, I can't emphasize enough that the decision to abolish as many diacritics as possible was the most un-Talossan thing that could have been done to the language.
I still believe in my analysis that regular stress in Talossan should by analyzed not as being on the penult but as being on the vowel before the last consonant, with certain exceptions (similar to what obtains in languages like Spanish and Portuguese). For Talossan, I think the final consonants not applying to the "vowel before the last consonant rule" should be -s, -n, -nt, -x, and maybe -c. This rule would cover plurals in vowel + s (e.g. feminine plurals in -âs), plurals in -en, third person plural verb forms in -ent as well as adverbs in -mînt, plurals in -eux as well as occasional other words such as computex. This rule would also then require the accent in words such as my name Tomás, as well as such fundamental words as Talossán/Talossáes, preserving the traditional proper spelling. I mentioned -c having adjectives in -ic in mind, but I don't know if those are numerous enough to outweigh other words ending in vowel + c, so I leave that one as a maybe.
Of course the question remains of how then to indicate stress not conforming to this. The tradtional system is as follows, for those unfamiliar: a > á in initial or medial position, à word-finally e > é when pronounced as closed /e/, ê when pronounced open /ɛ/ i > í in initial or medial position, ì word-finally o > ô u > ú in initial or medial position, ù word-finally, û in the specific word ending -oûr.
Now, these rules were already quite consistent, and I don't see why there should be any problem with them. There's no reason why you should have to use the same accent on every vowel. It may be simpler, but it doesn't look Talossan, and the traditional rules above aren't at all difficult to learn and remember. Again, the purpose of the Talossan language was never to be simple and easy and regular, but to embody Talossanness, in all its quirkiness and eccentricity.
That said, I'm open to some minor streamlining here. I'd be willing to lose the circumflex on e and o, as I think the two pronunciations of e are allophonic, and there's no similar quality distinction for o. So I'd accept extending the acute/grave rule as used on a, i and u to e and o as well. I won't accept losing the use of the grave accent on stressed vowels in final position, though, as that's too ingrained a part of the look of the language for me. The one thing that gives me pause here is the ending -oûr as that's such a distinct Talossanism. I hate to lose the circumflex there for that reason, although logically it serves no purpose. My heart wants to keep it but I could maybe be persuaded to accept its loss, depending on what else happpens.
The tradtional system does not mark irregular stress on ä, î, ö or ü. I don't have a solution for that. I'm so used to it that it doesn't bother me anyway. I honestly don't know how many words under the stress rules I like would end up with those vowels in an irregularly stressed position. Adding new diacritical marks for this honestly feels weird and not really right (though not as much as getting rid of the traditional orthography does). My preference would be to just leave that as is, and learn irregularly stressed ä, î, ö or ü as necessary. Any such should be marked in learning and reference materials anyway. Again, Talossan was never supposed to be 100% predictable and easy. It's just supposed to be Talossan.
As an aside here, I know some of y ou may be quite fond of your new system of using the acute on unarked vowels, and the circumflex to replace the dieresis. Its a simple, neat, predictable system. I have no issue with the system itself – I used this exact system in two of my own conlangs in high school back in the 80s! But it's not Talossan. It makes Talossan look and feel very wrong. I realize for those of you who learned the language using this system what I propose above may feel like a step backwards, like adding unnecessary complexity. But I believe with absolute conviction that is is necessary complexity – it restores to the language a significant measure of Talossanness which had been cruelly stripped away.
One last note on diacritics, then I'll shut up for now. Ben Madison and I both love the letter ë. It was our favorite letter in the Talossan language, and probably our favorite letter in any variety of the Latin alphabet. We were always trying to figure out how to get more ës into Talossan. So not only will I argue until my last breath for its place in the language, I'll also argue for finding as many places as possible to use it. For example, if you're going to pronounce the third person plural verb ending -ent as /ənt/ (as indicated in the Scúrzniâ Gramáticâ, but not in the Treisoûr), I'd be in favor of spelling it -ënt. I'd also go for extending the "irregular infinitive ending" -arë to all verbs if you really feel the need to have a special spelling to show the /ʃ/ pronunciation of the r here, instead of the ugly -arh which I can't stand (though I concede that spelling all infinitives, regular or irregular, as -ar is arguably more sensible).
That's all for now – I look forward to your responses, and yearn that you all might give me reason to hope again. Azul for now.
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 2, 2019 13:20:56 GMT -6
Azul, S:reu Gariçeir! I don't know how to preface my response to your posts, so, uh... Your dream scenario became real! We're currently in the middle of trying to re-reform the orthography. Your input is very much appreciated!
I'm absolutely no expert, but I think maybe there are two types of î, an allophonic one and a phonemic one. My plan was to find out which words have what kind of î, and then to respell the allophonic î's as i. I tried doing that myself but, well, I don't really know how to go about this.
On the topic of regularisation though, I've always wanted to remove the most egregious inconsistencies in the vocabulary, and I've complained about them before (qomsistar <> cunsistent??) Would you be opposed to this? I think the CÚG voted to replace un- with in-/im-/il-/ir- a while ago, but the change was never included in an Arestada.
My original plan was to write potentially stressed [ə] (as in, stressed [ə] as in ërxhënt and also [ə] that's sometimes stressed, like in ådulëschar > o ådulëscha) as ë and reintroducing ă as a "feminine schwa" or sorts. This plan would include removing â from words that aren't and cannot ever be feminine, like prepositions or what have you (intrâ etc). There are also some â that are pronounced as [ɨ], which would qualify as phonemic î as described above but whatever.
Maybe posttonic /a/ is pronounced [ə] while pretonic /a/ isnt?
In my opinion, treating diacritics as an integral part of the word instead of just stress markers is, well, ugly and non-Romance. Like, keeping stress marks even when the stress has shifted to another syllable is soooo misleading (cità > citànál; úçar > úçescù). I also don't like the tendency of marking default stress. It just makes it look unnecessarily cluttered.
I like it. It's easier to memorise than the rule we have right now.
The acute-grave system is the same in the current orthography, and irregularly stressed umlauts are already not marked. Technically there is a way to mark them (by adding a stress mark above the vowel in question), but in practice this is never done.
That method of stressmarking was deprecated in 2012. Talossan.com was never updated though, and I think the 2012 Arestada was never published. Maybe I'm wrong, but the CÚG website went offline a while ago so I cant doublecheck it.
The current consensus is to drop the silent -ë in infinitive endings (estarë > estar, irë > ir)
But aside from all of this, I have a question regarding this:
Was Talossan supposed to just be weird on purpose, or was it an attempt to construct a believable naturalistic language? Of course natural languages have irregularies and weird inconsistencies, so any attempt to turn Talossan into a relexification of Esperanto would be completely counterproductive. But, natural languages arent irregular because someone willed it so, and, in my opinion more importantly, natural languages are inconsitent in their irregularity, if that makes sense. So before I start to move Talossan in a direction it was potentially never supposed to be in, I wanted to clarify this. If the purpose of Talossan is just plain weirdness, the spelling reform isnt necessary at all; if anything, we should strive to add even more random eccentricities to it. But if the purpose of Talossan was to be believable in its weirdness, simplifying the spelling isnt only possible but also absolutely necessary.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 2, 2019 15:38:22 GMT -6
Was Talossan supposed to just be weird on purpose, or was it an attempt to construct a believable naturalistic language? Of course natural languages have irregularies and weird inconsistencies, so any attempt to turn Talossan into a relexification of Esperanto would be completely counterproductive. But, natural languages arent irregular because someone willed it so, and, in my opinion more importantly, natural languages are inconsitent in their irregularity, if that makes sense. So before I start to move Talossan in a direction it was potentially never supposed to be in, I wanted to clarify this. If the purpose of Talossan is just plain weirdness, the spelling reform isnt necessary at all; if anything, we should strive to add even more random eccentricities to it. But if the purpose of Talossan was to be believable in its weirdness, simplifying the spelling isnt only possible but also absolutely necessary.
The answer to the historical question is that Talossan wasn't "supposed" to be anything except the language of the people of Talossa. It was literally made up as King Robert I went along, taking on random quirks from whatever language or culture that R. B. Madison happened to be interested at the time. Here is the ex-King in his own words, you can watch the language evolving.
By 1999 Ben had gotten to the point where he wanted Talossan to be a "believable" descendant of 500AD North African Romance. Somewhere (I don't know where), he described Talossan as it existed as a big block of stone, and he was going to chip away at it until it became a sculpture of something. But (a) Ben's vision changed all the time; (b) he's gone, and it's extremely unlikely he's coming back. So it's up to us to decide.
|
|
|
Post by Tomás Gariçéir on May 3, 2019 8:37:51 GMT -6
Azul, S:reu Gariçeir! I don't know how to preface my response to your posts, so, uh... It's cool, just say hi and dive right into it! Muito prazer, by the way. I'm not a trained linguist, so I'm not sure whether it is the case that there is both phonemic and allophonic î or not. Given that the sound exists, and especially that both i and î can occur before n (the place where we once suspected possible allophony), I would prefer to always write î where the sound occurs. Not at all, I forgot about the variations of con-/ cun- when I wrote my original post. I'm in favour of choosing one consistent form for these words as well. I assume probably cun-, but don't have my dictionary handy to go over the words at the moment. I forgot about words like ërxhënt when I wrote my posts. I think instances of stressed /ə/ are pretty rare, and I'm not sure what the best way to handle them is. I always think of /ə/ as an unstressed, and then I bump in to ërxhënt and go "oh, yeah, what to do about that". Stressing /ə/ feels weird to me, always has. I'd need to see a list of all the words where it occurs (did you ever make one?) but this may be a place where I personally would be tempted to advocate for some minor change to these words – erxhënt or îrxhënt and ådulschar/ o ådulescha, for example. For now I'd say let's come back to discuss this once we get the bigger details sorted. Aesthetically I prefer â to ă for final feminine /ə/, but ă was part of the language for a long time (and probably wouldn't have been changed to â if not for limitations in computer fonts and typesetting in the 90s!) so I'm OK with changing back to ă if that's what other Ladintschen would prefer. I'm also fine with respelling words that have â = /ɨ/, e.g. changing sânc to sînc or whatever, if people want to do that. I agree with you here – I think words should have only one stress mark, and that only if it's not regular/default stress. The delicate balancing act is trying to figure out rules for default stress which allow as many diacritics as possible to be kept! OK, I was not aware of this change. Where can I see the orthography rules you're currently using? I'm OK with this. The purpose of the language was never to just be intentionally weird, no. But it also wasn't necessarily an attempt to construct a believable, naturalistic language, either. As I understand it from all of my discussions with Ben Madison about the language, It was really mostly created by feel. Ben always had an internal sense (frustratingly, never written down!) of what he wanted the language to look like, sound like and "feel like". And he built it up over the years according to his personal taste at the time, which of course changed as the years went by. The language is a fascinating testament to the languages he was interested in and studying at the time. Eventually it got to the point where he had a solid national mythos (the Romanized Berber thing) and he did then develop a more defined plan and structure for Talossan and for adding new vocabulary. But he didn't believe in going back and reworking everything else that already existed to make it fit that plan, so Talossan isn't really a linguistically plausible descendent of North African Latin. But then again, that wasn't the purpose of the language either, it's was more of a "here's how we'll do things from now on". I did ask Ben about how he derived new Talossan vocabulary – what sound changes he would apply to a Latin word or a Berber word or whatever to make it Talossan. He told me that he just had a feel for it and knew what to do. Again, it was something he never wrote down or codified, it was a heart/gut thing for him. I'm going out of town for the weekend, and will have limited intenet access until I'm back home on Monday. But please feel free to respond with your thoughts or any other issues or questions, and I'll be glad to talk more when I get back.
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 3, 2019 17:08:01 GMT -6
About stressed Ë, I made a list of words that have stressed Ë as well as verbs that have it in some forms. No guarantee that its a comprehensive list though, sometimes its difficult to tell where the stress was supposed to go. (GENITIVE MARKER) së ACQUIESCE aðcjëschar AHEM! (THROAT) c'hëm! AMATEUR amatër ASKANCE daspiërt ATTRACT dulcëschar BABBLINGS, BABYTALK faflërt BE DEFILED eschordëschar BE FRUITFUL fruxhëschar BE REDUCED TO ASHES decinerëschar BE TERRIFIED cunpavëschar BECOME DISTENDED, TURN TO STONE laplëschar BECOME EXASPERATED es-chabëschar BECOME INACTIVE igñhavëschar BECOME RANCID ranc'hëschar BECOME SHAMELESS despudëschar BECOME TORPID retorpëschar BETWEEN tëschënt BORROW ëmprëndar da BRAG cunstrëpar BREAK IN (NEW HORSE) vrëschar BREAK OUT (SKIN DISEASE) pustulëschar BRISTLE vrësclar BRR! (COLD) bërr! BUSH bësc BUZZ bëzar CATCH COLD algëschar CHAR carbonëschar CONSUMMATE desavërschar DEAFEN surdëschar DINING ROOM salamhënxh DISSOLVE (INTRANSITIVE) fluëschar EARL ërël EAT mënxhar EXHORT cumëstar FALL ASLEEP dormëschar FINANCE ërxhënçar FISH pësc FISH pëscar FIT (INTRANSITIVE) dëschar FIZZLE flëschar FOR, PER (E.G. £3 PER KILO) për FURROW (BROW) tëcrësar GERM (ORGANISM) xhërm GET CLAMMY edentëschar GET DUSKY furvëschar GET FED UP WITH esolëschar GET OLD aßenëschar GET SICK quagrëschar GET STINKY reputëschar GIDDY-UP! hëi hëi! GIVE BIRTH TO födërar GROW UP TOGETHER quadolëschar HATRED armiqësi HO! HELLO! hëi! HOLD IN CHECK cunpëschar IMPAIR praivëschar ISINGLASS côltafësc JAUNDICE vermëschar JUMP xhëmp JUMP xhëmpar LOSE PATIENCE eschervëschar LOSE STRENGTH devixhëschar LOSE VIGOUR evixhëschar MONEY, SILVER ërxhënt MURDER murdërar OVER HERE aici hëi OVER THERE, YONDER là hëi OVERSLEEP perquiëschar PIROUETTE stërbâ PISS, PISS OFF pëschar PLEASE! (CASUAL) përf! POKE HOLES fistulëschar POLICEMAN, SERGEANT sërxhënt PTARMIGAN (GROUSE) arbëdnâ QUECHUA Qëschuâ QUIET DOWN subticëschar SOLIDIFY cumpinguëschar SPOIL (FOOD) guëstar STINK pudëschar STRIKE DUMB mudëschar STRIPTEASE, TURN TO AUTUMN autumnëschar SUBSIDE cuflacëschar SULLY sculurëschar SWEETEN ådulëschar SWELL cuntumëschar TAUNT ispinëschar TERM (WORD) tërëm TO BE WORTHLESS sordëschar TURN TO ASHES cinerëschar UNTIE, UNBIND ralëschar UP HERE upp hëi WANE (MOON) descrëschar WANT TO SPEAK përstrëpar WAX (MOON) crëschar WEIGH HEAVILY ON apësar WHAT qët WHITEN nivëschar WHOOPEE (MOCK JOY) hahëihu! WHY përqët WORK ërbhëtar WORK ASSIGNMENT ërbhët WREST strëpar Notice that a lot of the verbs end in -ëschar. I don't know if there is some kind of system behind it. Maybe these verbs were supposed to be stressed on the antepenult? I'm just guessing.
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 4, 2019 6:40:08 GMT -6
Could I suggest allowing some assimilation, as in: cum- before p, b (as in cumparar)
cu- before m, n, l, r (compare colaborar, corêct)
cun- elsewhere We could also have a similar assimilation rule for în- (învís, împeratôr, iluminar, iresolü). As a side note, I recently noticed that there are four or so competing Presnt Participle endings in the vocabulary (fostînd vs. corent vs. consonînt vs. sigñhificând), which would need to be regularised as well.
Now I do like the stress rule you suggested earlier, but it would introduce new stress marks where there have never been any (*Régipäts, *funziún, *cúdësch). Would that be acceptable?
Sadly nowhere. Talossan.com, which is the main resource for current and potential future Ladintschen alike is at least 5 years out of date -- some words in the Översteir continue to use the deprecated 2007 way of stressmarking umlaut vowels, e.g. * sâparh. And even the pages that are up-to-date are sometimes in conflict with each other and earlier works such as the Scurznia Gramatica. The place that hosted all the recent Arestadas and Pienamaintschen was Cuglang.com, which went offline sometime this year. None of this is particularly fun.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 5, 2019 16:41:23 GMT -6
You do realise there's such a thing as web.archive.org, right? I would like at this point to ask Iac Marscheir, who has been a strong partisan of the post-2007 spellings, to join the conversation at this point so we get the "other side of the story".
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 6, 2019 0:26:29 GMT -6
Yes, but I also know that not everything was captured in time. For instance the 2011 Arestada isnt archived, but thats hosted on Kingdomoftalossa.net. Speaking of which, why is so much Glheþ stuff on KOT.net?
|
|