Linguifex

User:Ceige/Voloshky

< User:Ceige
Revision as of 13:56, 31 October 2016 by Ceige (talk | contribs) (→‎Sound changes of import)

Voloshky (cf. *volšьskъ) is a language, or rather a group of closely related dialects, inspired by the Slavic languages. Voloshky's main concept is to be a Slavicised Latinate language. To clarify, rather than being a Romance language in sensu stricto, it is descended from Classical Latin with the sound changes from Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Germanic to Proto-Slavic (and beyond) applied.

The following Wikimedia pages will be used as a reference:

The severe changes Slavic languages made to loan words can be demonstrated with some Germanic loanwords. The evolution of the Slavic languages is dominated by resyllabification and palatalisation processes which can result in roots being heavily modified. Many loans came in at just the right time for this to occur to them despite their foreign nature. For example:

  • *kъnędzь (kŭnẽdzĭ) is cognate to the English word "king". Due to short /u/ and /i/ being reduced, and due to progressive palatalisation occurring to the Germanic *-ingaz suffix, the word is almost unrecognisable in daughter languages (e.g. East Slavic князь, knjaz').
(Compare with *kõrljь, "king", from Karl (Charlemagne)).

Comparisons within Conlanging

The most comparable conlang already in the wild would be Wenedyk by Jan van Steenbergen. However, so far it appears that Voloshky will differ in many ways to Wenedyk, while perhaps being similar in other areas. This appears to be due to Wenedyk using Proto-Romance more than Latin (which is sensible for an althistory project). For example:

punctus (La. "point")
  • Wenedyk pąt < pǫt < pont- (presumably, I haven't asked!)
  • Voloshky pyćь < *pykt' < *pųkt < *punkt- (cf. noťь)
*ambiantia (should be ambiēntia? – Cf. Fr. ambiance)
  • Wenedyk jęblęca "surroundings" (may be using Polish or Wenedyk specific sound changes or roots)
  • Voloshky ǫblьǫ́ća / ǫblьę́ća (ǫ is an exception to vowel fronting in Voloshky)

These are just some differences, and no doubt there will be many similarities. Regardless, the reason for this comparison is to highlight the creative options available within the seemingly small concept that is "a Slavic langauge but descended from Latin", and to highlight some of the creative differences that can be expected. Simultaneously, it highlights the expected similarities from using similar sound changes.

At this stage, Voloshky has no irregular sound shifts or colloquialisms yet, as it's still mostly a thought experiment.

Sound changes of import

From the Wikipedia page History of Proto-Slavic are the following important developments (note pretty much everything here paraphrases the linked article sections):

  • Changes in syllable structure
  • Tendency for rising sonority in a syllable
  • Law of Open Syllables - examples given include *kun-je-mou > ku-nje-mou and *vuz-dā-tēi > vu-zdā-tēi (kъňemu and vъzdati).
  • Suggested allowable initial clusters: nj, zd, stv; Illegal intial clusters: nt, rd, pn)
  • Impossible to resyllabify, then final obstruents can be deleted (*supnos > sъnъ, sŭnŭ)
  • Includes nazalisation, metathesis, etc.
  • Syllable synharmony - includes palatalisation.
  • Nasalization
  • Length distinction is lost before nasals and and nasal vowels start off elongated
  • from Wikipedia:
Late PIE Early Proto-Slavic Proto-Slavic Common Slavic
*am, *an, *ām, *ān *ą̄ *ǫ
*em, *en, *ēm, *ēn ę̄ *ę
*im, *in, *īm, *īn į̄ ę̄ *ę
*um, *un, *ūm, *ūn *ų̄ *y
*Jum, *Jun, *Jūm, *Jūn *Jų̄ *Jį̄ *Ję̇
Examples: *źambas > *zǫ̂bъ; *źénˀtas > *zę̀tъ; *deśimtas > *desętъ; *lúnˀka > *lỳko; *kanjun(s) > *koňę̇.
  • Nasalisation before nasal consonant is possible but often results in denasalisation, cf. *inmen > *jĭmę (expected *jęmę; presumably denasalised while iN > į̄ and hadn't merged with ę̄ yet).
  • First regressive palatalization
  • All velars palatalise to postalveolar values before front vowels (i/ī/e/ē and j)
  • k > č; g > dž > ž; x > š; sk > šč; zg > ždž.
Example: PGmc *helmaz > šelmъ.
  • Iotation
  • Pervasive from end of first palatalisation to end of common period.
  • Dentals are palatalised with *j
  • tj > ť; dj > ď; stj > šť (> šč); zdj > žď (> ždž); sj > š; zj > ž; lj > ľ; nj > ň; rj > ř.
On my keyboard all of these are typed with alt+v, the haček.
  • Before existing first regressive palatals, the *j disappears into the consonant. čj > č.
  • East and South Slavic labial consonants have ľ appear after them; West (and East South) Slavic either reverses this or simply never has lateralisation except in some cases.
  • mj, bj, pj, vj > mľ, bľ, pľ, vľ
Examples: zemja > zemľa, zemьja; pľьvàti in West Slavic but Lith. spjáuti.
  • Vowel fronting
  • *J fronts following vowel back component
  • Ja (Jo) > Je; Jā > Jē; Jū > Jī; Jai > Jei (> Jī); Jau > Jeu (> Jū); Jų̄ > Jį̄ (> Ję̇).
  • Towards end of common Slavic period, *Jē reverted to *Jā.
  • Vowel fronting blocked with the low-back nasal vowel ą/ǫ, thus znajǫ; ų still affected (see Nazalization).
  • Prothesis
  • Prothetic glides inserted before i, u, and e at the start of words, just for fun.
  • i, ī, e, ē > ji, jī (jь), je, jē
  • u, ū > vu (vъ), vȳ (via wu and wū/wȳ).
  • *a did not normally get prothetised, but *ā did get j- and to a lesser extent v- appended to it. There may have been two *ā's?
  • Monophthongization and other vowel changes
  • *u loses labialisation, and *a gets some ambiguous rounding.
  • ū > ȳ > y (u loses rounding after prothesis, see above!)
  • au > ū (presumably ō (assuming that wasn't ā, in which case ō₂) > ū, mirroring Germanic?)
  • eu > (j)ū (see Iotation)
  • ei > ī
  • ai > ē (but ī in the 2ndp. imperative, 2s athematic verbs, dative singular of clitic personal pronouns)
  • a > o
  • Second regressive palatalization
  • New ē ([æ:?]) and ī vowels caused a new wave of palatalisation.
  • ḱ, ǵ, x́ > c, dz (> z), ś (> s/š) (see Progressive palatalization for info on East/West split there).
Example for "wolf": vьlkъ, vьlci, vьlcě, vьlcěxъ
  • Progressive palatalization
  • Time unknown; happened when a preceding vowel, particularly i and ī (with or without n in between) was present.
  • Probably disallowed before consonants and high back vowels.
  • k > c; g > dz (> z in most dialects); x > ś > s/š. Very similar to second regressive palatalisation.
Examples: *atikus > otьcь (father); PGmc *kuningaz > kъnędzь; *vixus (all) > vьšь (West), vьsь (E/S).
  • May have occurred before first regressive palatalisation, thus the ḱ/ǵ/x́ notation, allowing for *otьče to arise instead of *otьce (Pedersen 1905, Channon 1972, Lunt 1981 - see Wikipedia article).
  • Old Novgorod dialect ignores half of this anyway coz #yolo.
  • Accent (I'm not touching that yet!)

Later changes for daughter languages

From here:

  • Palatalisation
  • Some dialects allow palatalisation across *v, thus *gvězda > Ru. звезда, Pl. gwiazda, Cz. hvězda, Ma. ѕвезда.
I will have to decide whether Latin qu/gu survives this far...
  • Iotation outcomes table stolen from article:
Proto-Slavic OCS Bulg. Mac. S-C Slvn. Czech Slvk. Pol. Bel. Ukr. Russ.
Written *ť št št ḱ ć č c c c č č č
IPA *c(ː) ʃt ʃt c t͡ɕ t͡ʃ t͡s t͡s t͡s t͡ʃ t͡ʃ t͡ʃ
Written *ď žd žd ǵ đ j z dz dz (d)ž (d)ž ž
IPA *ɟ(ː) ʒd ʒd ɟ d͡ʑ j z d͡z d͡z (d)ʒ (d)ʒ ʒ
  • Varying levels of depalatalisation and generalised palatalisation. Cf. Russian 4-way palatalisation using ь and *J, and Czech lack of palatalisation despite ř. Polish split consonants based on palatalisation.
  • Palatalisation leads to *y and *i merging in common Slavic (e.g. i/y = same; ji/jy = same).
  • The yers ь and ъ
  • Quoting the article: This change is known as Havlík's law. A yer at the end of a word, or preceding a strong yer or non-yer vowel was weak, and a yer followed by a weak yer became strong. The pattern created sequences of alternating strong and weak yers within each word: every odd yer encountered was weak, every even yer was strong..
  • Example given: sъmolьnьskъ (NOM SING), sъmolьnьska (GEN SING) (Smolensk).
  • Yer realisations from article, see article for more examples:
Proto-Slavic OCS Bulg. Mac. S-C Slvn. Czech Slvk. Pol. USorb LSorb Bel. Russ. Ukr.
strong *ь ь e, ă e a ǝ,a e e (a,á,o) 'e e e 'e 'e e
strong *ъ ъ ă o a ǝ,a e o (e,a,á) e e e o o o
  • Vowel deletion results in a whole new set of problems where sonorant clusters appear. Russian and Polish just live with the resulting clusters, Serbo-Croatian strengthens yers, sonorants are made syllabic in Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian, and a prothetic vowel is used in Belorussian dialects (example given: lënu ~ l'nu ~ il'nú "flax (gen. sg.)" (Common Slavic *lьnu)).
  • If a cluster still needs breaking, strong yer is inserted.
  • See article for info on tense yers with Russian.
  • Liquid diphthongs
  • East slavic use VLV instead of LV metathesis; ele merges with olo but ere != oro. ьr, ъr, ьl, ъl become er, or, ol, ol in East Slavic.
  • The nasal vowels ę and ǫ
Proto-Slavic OCS Bulg. Mac. S-C Slvn. Czech Slvk. Pol. Bel. Russ. Ukr.
*ę ę e e e ẹ̄ a, ě a, ä ię ja ja ja
*ę̄ ę̄ ē á, í ia ią
*ǫ ǫ ǎ a u ọ̄ u u ę u u u
*ǭ ǭ ū ou ú ą
  • Length comes from accent, therefore accent needs to be considered at some point.
  • Czech outcomes depend on palatalisation.
  • Slovak outcomes depend on labials (bä).
  • The yat vowel ě
  • Presumably long ē that survived, lowered and even diphthongised to [iæ].
Later raised in most contexts outside Bulg. and Pol., then promptly diphthongised or simplified to [e] or [i].
  • Russian simplified it to [e] but *e > [E]; [e] > e, and [E] > jo before non-palatalised consonants (getting Gaelic here!). Ignored by Church loans (e.g. remained [E]), then surviving [E] and [e] merged.
  • Table of outcomes:
Proto-Slavic OCS Bulg. Mac. S-C Slvn. Czech Slvk. Pol. Bel. Russ. Ukr.
*ě ě ja/e e (i)je, e, i е ě (i)e ie, ia e e i
  • More accent shenanigans which will bite me in the arse later
Retrieved from "https://linguifex.com/w/index.php?title=User:Ceige/Voloshky&oldid=58714"