Sarroc grammar notes

[hwhatting]

I like what you did here, a language undergoing the influence of an unrelated prestige language.
I noted a few typos / errors:

cf. tiena ‘has’ vs. tyena ‘meal’. The y variants are palatalized in Iďanieȟa, thus [tjɛna] vs. [tjɛna].

Indication of palatalisation is missing

Indefinite references (like we do, you know?) generally use muiȟ ‘we’.

Isn’t muiȟ “you (pl.)?

Entries in the “indefinite pronouns” table seem to be mixed up.

There’s a “smaller than” sign in this example sentence in interrogative pronouns:

Kedyoi≤ tyouwa siora tioroniȟ?

[zompist]

These should be fixed now. Thanks, HW!

[willm]

I enjoyed reading about Sarroc quite a bit. I've noticed a few things too, though. In the reflexives section, there is an instance of “reflective” that I think should be “reflexive”. In the section on subordinate clauses, the first two example sentences are in different orders but have identical glosses. In the section on relative clauses, the example sentence “The lawyer is helping the wife who was cheated on by the man” has “hate” in the gloss for what I think should be “help”. In the section on greetings and farewells, there is an instance of “conversaion” instead of “conversation”.

[zompist]

Thanks, willm! All should be fixed.

[hwhatting]

BTW, I noted that the news about Sarroc is not yet on the main zompist.com page?

[zompist]

BTW, I noted that the news about Sarroc is not yet on the main zompist.com page?

It is, probably you need to refresh the page.

[hwhatting]

It is, probably you need to refresh the page.

Yes, I can see it now.

[BGMan]

Noticed the Icelandic-style diphthong formation or breaking. (Namely, Icelandic á = "ao", é = "ie", ó = "ou". í, ú, and ý aren't that exciting though.)

The ablative -ȟ ending parallels Ismaîn -s. That made me think of all those Spanish-speakers who turn s in syllable codas to h.

The ranks appear to correspond to Munkhashi A, B, and D, rather than B, D, and E like in Dhekhnami?

I get the impression that Caďinor in Sarroc used both 2p and 3p formal pronouns, perhaps even using royal "we" in the singular to further cement the impression of the plural being high rank. It contrasts with Verdurian which uses 3s as formal singular. (Just looked at the Verdurian grammar again, btw... I imagine Italians would have quite a bit of trouble with getting formal vs informal "you" back-to-front.)

[zompist]

The ranks appear to correspond to Munkhashi A, B, and D, rather than B, D, and E like in Dhekhnami?

I'm not following... they're pretty much the same. Sarroc is genetically Central; it just manhandled its conjugation to end up at the same result.

I get the impression that Caďinor in Sarroc used both 2p and 3p formal pronouns, perhaps even using royal "we" in the singular to further cement the impression of the plural being high rank. It contrasts with Verdurian which uses 3s as formal singular.

Both more or less stolen from European languages.

(Just looked at the Verdurian grammar again, btw... I imagine Italians would have quite a bit of trouble with getting formal vs informal "you" back-to-front.)

Curiously, one of the first people to actually learn Verdurian was an Italian, Francisco Felici. I don't think he said anything about it!

[So Haleza Grise]

A small typo I noticed: "There are five conjugations in Caďinor. These are mostly distinguished in the infinitive."

I think this should be in Sarroc.

[zompist]

That part is correct, but I was unclear. It's supposed to be a historical comparison: there were five paradigms in Caďinor, just four in Sarroc (and the remaining differences are minimal).

[BGMan]

Noticed the Icelandic-style diphthong formation or breaking. (Namely, Icelandic á = "ao", é = "ie", ó = "ou". í, ú, and ý aren't that exciting though.)

Going off this idea, I can't help but think that there could have been a drive somewhere, sometime, within the Sarroc-speaking area to spell the diphthongs ao, ie, io, oi, and ui as ä, ë, ï, ö, ü in Verdurian script after the occupation ended but before Sarroc orthography was solidified. Perhaps it could be explained as something which was tried for a time but was ultimately abandoned in favor of writing out the diphthongs, or something which is still done but only in Érenat, or both... just an idea.

[zompist]

Noticed the Icelandic-style diphthong formation or breaking. (Namely, Icelandic á = "ao", é = "ie", ó = "ou". í, ú, and ý aren't that exciting though.)

Going off this idea, I can't help but think that there could have been a drive somewhere, sometime, within the Sarroc-speaking area to spell the diphthongs ao, ie, io, oi, and ui as ä, ë, ï, ö, ü in Verdurian script after the occupation ended but before Sarroc orthography was solidified. Perhaps it could be explained as something which was tried for a time but was ultimately abandoned in favor of writing out the diphthongs, or something which is still done but only in Érenat, or both... just an idea.

I like the way the digraphs look, but I do like your idea. Could be some sort of variant!