Zompist Bboard Again

Modern Akkadian

For a moment I was working on a modern descendant of Akkadian. I imagined it spoken in Northern Iraq with speakers clustered in Mosul, Erbil, and Kirkuk. I recall that I called it something like Agadi - عقادي. If I had completed the project it would have had tremendous influences from Arabic, Persian, Turkish and every other linguistic group that has trapesed its way through Northern Mesopotamia over the past 3000 years.

I have two kind-of-on-the go ideas. A para-Anotolian language that ended up in the Balkan Sprachbund, located around the Albania-Montenegro-Serbia-Kosovo border, and a Southern Romance french analogue located somewhere, maybe the Balearics?

Arzena wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 12:13 pm Modern Akkadian

For a moment I was working on a modern descendant of Akkadian. I imagined it spoken in Northern Iraq with speakers clustered in Mosul, Erbil, and Kirkuk. I recall that I called it something like Agadi - عقادي. If I had completed the project it would have had tremendous influences from Arabic, Persian, Turkish and every other linguistic group that has trapesed its way through Northern Mesopotamia over the past 3000 years.

I had an idea of this, but with Elamite or Sumerian, somewhere in the mountains of Southwestern Iran...

Lērisama wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 2:18 pm I have two kind-of-on-the go ideas. A para-Anotolian language that ended up in the Balkan Sprachbund, located around the Albania-Montenegro-Serbia-Kosovo border, and a Southern Romance french analogue located somewhere, maybe the Balearics?

Neat!

þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 2:43 pm

Arzena wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 12:13 pm Modern Akkadian

For a moment I was working on a modern descendant of Akkadian. I imagined it spoken in Northern Iraq with speakers clustered in Mosul, Erbil, and Kirkuk. I recall that I called it something like Agadi - عقادي. If I had completed the project it would have had tremendous influences from Arabic, Persian, Turkish and every other linguistic group that has trapesed its way through Northern Mesopotamia over the past 3000 years.

I had an idea of this, but with Elamite or Sumerian, somewhere in the mountains of Southwestern Iran...

Apparently Elamite survived until the 11th century CE in the town of Ramhormoz.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 2:51 pm Apparently Elamite survived until the 11th century CE in the town of Ramhormoz.

This. I honestly don't know if it's CERTAINLY Elamite (could be anything, really, from an even earlier relic to a particularly peculiar Iranic dialect to a language of some nomadic group that migrated here at some point between very ancient times to Early Middle Ages) but whatever it is, it would really be interesting.

þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 3:12 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 2:51 pm Apparently Elamite survived until the 11th century CE in the town of Ramhormoz.

This. I honestly don't know if it's CERTAINLY Elamite (could be anything, really, from an even earlier relic to a particularly peculiar Iranic dialect to a language of some nomadic group that migrated here at some point between very ancient times to Early Middle Ages) but whatever it is, it would really be interesting.

Indeed. I double-checked that article before commenting in case there were any other theories, but it doesn’t list any.

þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2026 4:03 am 4. I once had a somewhat silly thought of Tocharian-speaking nomads doing a Hungary-esque migration to Northern Italy. Speaking of nomads...

It depends on the theory, but it wouldn't have to be a Hungary-esque migration. Some Tocharologists think Tocharian is a Northwest Group language which developed in central Europe (near either Germanic and Balto-Slavic or Greek) and went east later. Although this would be Pre-Proto-Tocharian, without the plosive MOA collapse and other likely Samoyedic contact features.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 3:55 pm Some Tocharologists think Tocharian is a Northwest Group language which developed in central Europe (near either Germanic and Balto-Slavic or Greek) and went east later.

I've seen these ideas, but if I may, my view on this is that the reason for this idea is that the model these IEAnists have of PIE is still very close to the classical ("Brugmannian") model that was seriously skewed by the common areal developments of Indo-Greek. In that view, the shared features between Tocharian and Western IE must be due to them being a clade or common areal developments, making the assumption necessary that Tocharian was located near the Western languages at some point. If, on the other hand, one assumes a more Anatolian-like model of PIE and assumes that the "Classical" features shared to different degrees by other languages as the result of common developments (genetic and areal) after Anatolian split off, with Indo-Greek presenting the geographical core of these common developments, than the shared features between Tocharian and Western IE can be retentions, and there's no need for geographical closeness. This would also align with the current general assumption that Tocharian split off second, after Anatolian, not participating in the development of many Classical IE features and, by implcation leaving it even less opportunity to develop common features with specifically the Western IE languages.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 4:35 am

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 3:55 pm Some Tocharologists think Tocharian is a Northwest Group language which developed in central Europe (near either Germanic and Balto-Slavic or Greek) and went east later.

I've seen these ideas, but if I may, my view on this is that the reason for this idea is that the model these IEAnists have of PIE is still very close to the classical ("Brugmannian") model that was seriously skewed by the common areal developments of Indo-Greek. In that view, the shared features between Tocharian and Western IE must be due to them being a clade or common areal developments, making the assumption necessary that Tocharian was located near the Western languages at some point. If, on the other hand, one assumes a more Anatolian-like model of PIE and assumes that the "Classical" features shared to different degrees by other languages as the result of common developments (genetic and areal) after Anatolian split off, with Indo-Greek presenting the geographical core of these common developments, than the shared features between Tocharian and Western IE can be retentions, and there's no need for geographical closeness. This would also align with the current general assumption that Tocharian split off second, after Anatolian, not participating in the development of many Classical IE features and, by implcation leaving it even less opportunity to develop common features with specifically the Western IE languages.

Early IE of course was an expanding and gradually diversifying dialect continuum where innovations could spread in all direction, resulting in overlapping isoglosses. Hence, it is very difficult (not to say meaningless) to draw a family tree above the level of such nodes as Balto-Slavic or Indo-Iranian (even Italo-Celtic is highly uncertain); the wave model fits better. Only Anatolian and Tocharian show clear signs of separating from this continuum earlier, with Anatolian separating considerably earlier than Tocharian. Anatolian seems to reflect an early stage of PIE quite different from "classic" PIE; Tocharian, in contrast. can be accounted for by the conventional reconstruction quite well, but appears not to have been reached by most of the innovations, whether "western" or "eastern", that spread through the early IE dialect continuum and shaped the "classic" IE branches. This is consistent with the notion that Tocharian descends from the language of the Afanasievo culture, which appears to have been founded by Yamanya people going on an epic trek eastward and losing contact to their old homeland - it descends from the same stage of PIE as the "classic" branches, but developed in isolation from them and went its own way entirely.

For my fellow Italo-Celtic enjoyers: neat ways to deal with kʷ gʷ

(I-C is disputed and obviously, labiovelars aren't limited to those; still, I decided to joke with the title because I'm so prominently working on an Italic and a Para-Celtic conlang simultaneously and dealt with these phonemes in mildly interesting ways)

kʷ gʷ, labiovelars. Classic Indo-European features (but obviously, not only)...
The historically well-known ways of SC associated with them include the full labialization into p b (as Osco-Umbrian, Gaulish and Brittonic did), delabialization into k g (as Goidelic did, only with kʷ tho because gʷ turned into b), several separate treatments (like Greek did, turning them into p, t or k in different positions), or just retaining them intactly... But what else can we do with them?

In my Fevornian conlang, they changed differently adjacent to different phonemes (somewhat similarly to Greek, but not identically): they became k g near u, w, and p b in all other contexts.

In my Lusitanian conlang, they simply labialized, but voiceless labiovelar became fortis p which contrasted with lenis inherited PIE p and later contributed to tonogenesis.

But what else can one do? Some shower thoughts I got...

Maybe turning them into coarticulated consonants like k͡p g͡b? Idk if any such SC is attested anywhere tho...

Or making tonogenesis from losing labialization contrast, labialized consonants giving low tone (probably) and unlabialized ones giving high tone?

Or, hmm, maybe making a full-on productive labialized-unlabialized contrast for most consonants? Think like Russian, Moksha or Irish's palatalization contrast, but labialization (I'm not sure, but probably at least one natlang already has this, lol).

þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 10:24 am Or, hmm, maybe making a full-on productive labialized-unlabialized contrast for most consonants? Think like Russian, Moksha or Irish's palatalization contrast, but labialization (I'm not sure, but probably at least one natlang already has this, lol).

This is attested mostly in languages which have transphonologised vowel features onto adjacent consonants (like NW Caucasian, Arrernte, Margi or Marshallese), giving them very small vowel systems alongside large consonant inventors with contrastive palatalisation and labialisation. Otherwise some Austronesian languages have quite a few labialised consonants, but not as systematically as Russian’s palatalisation.

þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 10:24 am kʷ gʷ, labiovelars. Classic Indo-European features (but obviously, not only)...
The historically well-known ways of SC associated with them include the full labialization into p b (as Osco-Umbrian, Gaulish and Brittonic did), delabialization into k g (as Goidelic did, only with kʷ tho because gʷ turned into b), several separate treatments (like Greek did, turning them into p, t or k in different positions), or just retaining them intactly... But what else can we do with them?

For one Hesperic conlang meant to be spoken in the Cantabrian mountains of northern Spain, I have the idea of turning them into /f/ and /v/, respectively. /v/ would merge with /v/ from *w, while /f/ is a new phoneme in the language.

Some ideas of my own unlikely to get off the ground:

- A modern descendant of Dacian spoken in the Carpathians. May still use a variant of the Old Hungarian script.
- A descendant of Khazar spoken by the descendants of Jewish converts - essentially the Turkic equivalent to Yiddish/Ladino.
- An eastern relative of Hungarian spoken along the Volga, near Tatarstan.
- A Gallo-Romance language that came under the influence of Arabic - the result of surviving crusader states.

ophois wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 1:35 am the Turkic equivalent to Yiddish/Ladino

Well.. it kinda is a thing already, although from a different branch.

I once had an alternate history idea of a Late Medieval - Early Modern Jewish state in Crimea and adjacent areas, emerging as a subject of a large pagan empire (Lithuania? Turkic steppe empire like the Golden Horde? Finno-Ugric state?) that's basically chiller with Jews than Christians/Muslims because they don't try to be imperialist against them.

ophois wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 1:35 am Some ideas of my own unlikely to get off the ground:

- A modern descendant of Dacian spoken in the Carpathians. May still use a variant of the Old Hungarian script.
- A descendant of Khazar spoken by the descendants of Jewish converts - essentially the Turkic equivalent to Yiddish/Ladino.
- An eastern relative of Hungarian spoken along the Volga, near Tatarstan.
- A Gallo-Romance language that came under the influence of Arabic - the result of surviving crusader states.

And yes, neat.

ophois wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 1:35 am Some ideas of my own unlikely to get off the ground:

- A modern descendant of Dacian spoken in the Carpathians. May still use a variant of the Old Hungarian script.
- A descendant of Khazar spoken by the descendants of Jewish converts - essentially the Turkic equivalent to Yiddish/Ladino.
- An eastern relative of Hungarian spoken along the Volga, near Tatarstan.
- A Gallo-Romance language that came under the influence of Arabic - the result of surviving crusader states.

All of these are nice, interesting ideas.

I am considering reviving the Second Caucasus Project of the defunct League of Lost Languages as a personal project. The idea is that the Alps, similar to the Caucasus, could boast a number of indigenous languages: Celtic, Hesperic, Raetic and some languages from the Neolithic. Alas, I have enough to do with Proto-Hesperic, and when that is done, I'll focus on Old Albic which will feature in the novel I am writing right now. And of course, there are reasons why the Alps are linguistically less diverse than the Caucasus: they are much more accessible than the Caucasus, and have been surrounded by a "sea" of first whatever the Bell Beaker people spoke, then Celtic and finally Latin/Romance - but that doesn't mean that old languages couldn't hold out there.

Years ago, there was a discussion about a "Graeco sine flexione", analogous to the auxlang Latino sine flexione, on the CONLANG mailing list, which transmuted into a discussion of an alternative history where Alexander the Great lives longer, conquers Italy and as a result, most of Western Europe now speaks Hellenic instead of Romance languages (and the counterpart of Giuseppe Peano would make a "Greek without inflections" as an auxlang). There was a discussion about making this a collaborative project, but one participant expressed his fear that such a project would result in cheap "bogolangs" made by applying the sound changes of the Romance languages to Greek. Also, it can be objected that the linguistic dynamics of Hellenism were different from those of the Roman Empire - the peoples conquered by Alexander the Great continued to speak Egyptian, Aramaic, Persian or whatever, instead of shifting to Greek, so why should Alexander's subjects in the west show a different behaviour? (But if the pre-Roman linguistic landscape of Western Europe with Gaulish, Iberian, Etruscan and all that stays intact, that also offers interesting possibilities, of course.)

Another idea I once had is that the Romans, who once were ruled by an Etruscan nobility and acquired many traits of Etruscan culture but retained their Italic language, also shifted to the Etruscan language, but otherwise history proceeds as we know it, so much of Western Europe now speaks languages descended from Etruscan - which, as you know, is not even Indo-European! This, however, is also questionable (the adoption of Etruscan by the Roman plebs would need changes in the social and political structure of Rome which would in turn question the likelihood of a Roman Empire), and also difficult to do because we don't know the Etruscan language well enough.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 7:42 am Years ago, there was a discussion about a "Graeco sine flexione", analogous to the auxlang Latino sine flexione, on the CONLANG mailing list

Which of course led to Το Ἄνευ Κλίσι Ελληνική.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 7:42 am which transmuted into a discussion of an alternative history where Alexander the Great lives longer, conquers Italy and as a result, most of Western Europe now speaks Hellenic instead of Romance languages

Bret Devereaux tackled this subject recently. The summary is that Italy was too heavily fortified for a Hellenistic army to crack. Alexander was able to conquer the Achaemenid empire because the majority of its settlements simply surrendered in advance of his arrival; Italy didn't act like that when Hannibal Barca showed up and it didn't act like that when Pyrrhus of Epirus (very likely the greatest military mind of his generation) showed up, so while our evidence is scanty it seems exceedingly likely it wouldn't have acted like that when a counterfactual Alexander showed up.

(There's also reason to think Alexander may not have been able to draw up a plan for invading Italy to begin with. He was a competent general, but he was operating a military machine built by and following designs to pull the Greek city-states of Anatolia away from the Achaemenids drawn up by his father.)

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 7:42 am Also, it can be objected that the linguistic dynamics of Hellenism were different from those of the Roman Empire - the peoples conquered by Alexander the Great continued to speak Egyptian, Aramaic, Persian or whatever, instead of shifting to Greek, so why should Alexander's subjects in the west show a different behaviour?

No kidding. Part of the reason that the subject peoples of the Roman Republic/Empire adopted Latin was that it was part and parcel of adopting Roman citizenship, which was meaningfully more accessible to them than their counterparts in the Hellenistic kingdoms; the point at which that stopped being the case was also the point at which the empire in the west fell.

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 12:31 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 7:42 am Years ago, there was a discussion about a "Graeco sine flexione", analogous to the auxlang Latino sine flexione, on the CONLANG mailing list

Which of course led to Το Ἄνευ Κλίσι Ελληνική.

Yep. And it was its author, Raymond A. Brown, who first dreamt up an alternative Giuseppe Peano from a timeline where Alexander the Great conquered Italy as the fictional creator of his conlang, but pulled the plug again on that scenario when he realized that it would likely become an Ill-Bethisad-like mess of bogolangs. (He later started Britainese, which he is still working on, as a more plausible reply on Brithenig, the British Romance language around which Ill Bethisad had crystallized.)

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 12:31 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 7:42 am which transmuted into a discussion of an alternative history where Alexander the Great lives longer, conquers Italy and as a result, most of Western Europe now speaks Hellenic instead of Romance languages

Bret Devereaux tackled this subject recently. The summary is that Italy was too heavily fortified for a Hellenistic army to crack. Alexander was able to conquer the Achaemenid empire because the majority of its settlements simply surrendered in advance of his arrival; Italy didn't act like that when Hannibal Barca showed up and it didn't act like that when Pyrrhus of Epirus (very likely the greatest military mind of his generation) showed up, so while our evidence is scanty it seems exceedingly likely it wouldn't have acted like that when a counterfactual Alexander showed up.

(There's also reason to think Alexander may not have been able to draw up a plan for invading Italy to begin with. He was a competent general, but he was operating a military machine built by and following designs to pull the Greek city-states of Anatolia away from the Achaemenids drawn up by his father.)

Yes. It is often said that Alexander built an empire within a few years. This is not true; all he did was to take over an existing empire from a dynasty that had lost their vigour. Italy was not part of that empire, so conquering it would have been an entirely different matter. (And of course, that old, rotten and overstretched empire fell apart quickly after Alexander's untimely death. It may have hung on a little longer - but only a little longer - if Alexander had lived long enough to settle his succession.)

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 12:31 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2026 7:42 am Also, it can be objected that the linguistic dynamics of Hellenism were different from those of the Roman Empire - the peoples conquered by Alexander the Great continued to speak Egyptian, Aramaic, Persian or whatever, instead of shifting to Greek, so why should Alexander's subjects in the west show a different behaviour?

No kidding. Part of the reason that the subject peoples of the Roman Republic/Empire adopted Latin was that it was part and parcel of adopting Roman citizenship, which was meaningfully more accessible to them than their counterparts in the Hellenistic kingdoms; the point at which that stopped being the case was also the point at which the empire in the west fell.

Just that. The Achaemenid Empire always was multilingual; most people spoke whatever they spoke, but not Persian. The rulers, or at least the administrators of the provinces, learned the languages of their subjects in order to rule them. Alexander was just a new king from a foreign dynasty, and nothing changed about that. Latin spread in the Roman Empire because it was the language of citizenship, of a culture people could become part of - while Greek in the Hellenist world was just the language of some foreign dynasties far removed from the daily lives of the people. So western Hellenism is a double non-starter concerning Hellenic altlangs: it probably wouldn't have happened, and even if it did, it would almost certainly not result in a Western Europe filled with Hellenic languages.