Zompist Bboard Again

The Modern Verdurian grammar is now available.

That is, the existing reference grammar describes the language of 3480. The new grammar updates the language two centuries onward.

Also see the page on Basfahe, the lower-class language of 3480, which underlies (but is far from identical to) Modern Verdurian.

Nice stuff!

Thanks!

Good to read through this again! I like the parallel text examples and the nuances of the differences between MV and EMV style.

It chimed with a wondering I've got, so I'll put it here:

What happens to the (EMV) colloquial verb accen ‘to scold / tell off’ in the tensed forms?

acsnai, acsnei, acsne...?
accmai, accmei, accme...?

If I am reading it right, the reference grammar suggests these outcomes, but I'm not certain on them. Or perhaps they do exist in this more unstable-seeming form in EMV, in which case, would anything happen to them in MV to produce some sound-change altered stems of types which aren't documented in the RG?

sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 1:48 am What happens to the (EMV) colloquial verb accen ‘to scold / tell off’ in the tensed forms?
acsnai, acsnei, acsne...?
accmai, accmei, accme...?

If I am reading it right, the reference grammar suggests these outcomes, but I'm not certain on them.

Yeah, that looks right to me too.

In MV I think you'd get acnai... and acmai...

(The cc definitely reduces to c. I see [ksn] reducing, and the s is the weak link.

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 3:25 am

sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 1:48 am What happens to the (EMV) colloquial verb accen ‘to scold / tell off’ in the tensed forms?
acsnai, acsnei, acsne...?
accmai, accmei, accme...?

If I am reading it right, the reference grammar suggests these outcomes, but I'm not certain on them.

Yeah, that looks right to me too.

In MV I think you'd get acnai... and acmai...

(The cc definitely reduces to c. I see [ksn] reducing, and the s is the weak link.

Ah, brilliant, thank you!

Very similar quick question re imyasnen: is the past imyasnnai, imyasnai (same as present) or imyasninai? Or something else? (Mainly asking for EMV, but curious how they develop too.)

sasasha wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 6:03 am Very similar quick question re imyasnen: is the past imyasnnai, imyasnai (same as present) or imyasninai? Or something else? (Mainly asking for EMV, but curious how they develop too.)

imyasnnai. (I'm not sure where you'd find -ni... did I suggest that somewhere?)

MV ĩyasnáy.

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 6:40 am

sasasha wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 6:03 am Very similar quick question re imyasnen: is the past imyasnnai, imyasnai (same as present) or imyasninai? Or something else? (Mainly asking for EMV, but curious how they develop too.)

imyasnnai. (I'm not sure where you'd find -ni... did I suggest that somewhere?)

MV ĩyasnáy.

Ah, thank you! Ok, that works, and I like that it's levelled with the present in MV (I think?)!

(And no you didn't suggest that directly, but I wasn't sure that imyasnnai was phonotactically legal ‒ the relevant section in the reference grammar neither suggests -sn as a permissable coda, nor mentions syllabic nasals ‒ which you do discuss for e.g. Ismaîn ‒ so I was unsure on the form it should take. It does say there are a number of phonotactic oddities, so I guess this is one? I just guessed at -ni- by analogy with the -i- after liquids rule in -r verbs. I like that it's imyasnnai but I wonder if it might be worth just slightly clarifying that in the grammar to make it clear that these forms are legal. Apologies if I am misreading it and already is clear!!)

sasasha wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:08 pm Ah, thank you! Ok, that works, and I like that it's levelled with the present in MV (I think?)!

Yep. I always enjoy ruining a paradigm with a handful of sound changes.

(And no you didn't suggest that directly, but I wasn't sure that imyasnnai was phonotactically legal ‒ the relevant section in the reference grammar neither suggests -sn as a permissable coda, nor mentions syllabic nasals ‒ which you do discuss for e.g. Ismaîn ‒ so I was unsure on the form it should take. It does say there are a number of phonotactic oddities, so I guess this is one? I just guessed at -ni- by analogy with the -i- after liquids rule in -r verbs. I like that it's imyasnnai but I wonder if it might be worth just slightly clarifying that in the grammar to make it clear that these forms are legal. Apologies if I am misreading it and already is clear!!)

Often I'm just as much at the mercy of the grammar as you are. The printed version on my shelf is from 1994, and the last major revision is 2018. So I'm going by the text and what exceptions it permits.

You're quite right that imyasnnai is odd in phonotactics. I think it's possible to pronounce correctly, with [n:], but this is probably a word that anticipated the loss of double consonants. There is a lot I could add on allophony, but for now probably just read the Basfahe grammar in conjunction with the EMV one.

(Er, not that you should go for a Basfahe pronunciation. It's just an indication of what changes were already common.)

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:26 pm

sasasha wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:08 pm Ah, thank you! Ok, that works, and I like that it's levelled with the present in MV (I think?)!

Yep. I always enjoy ruining a paradigm with a handful of sound changes.

Haha, yeah. So, on that note, I'm curious what might happen to this fun pair (semantically) when they merge (phonetically):

ranát - n - bureaucracy; entrenched fogbound power structure; the establishment, the status quo [play on rana ‘frog’ and ränát ‘hierarchy’]
ränát - n - hierarchy

(And no you didn't suggest that directly, but I wasn't sure that imyasnnai was phonotactically legal ‒ the relevant section in the reference grammar neither suggests -sn as a permissable coda, nor mentions syllabic nasals ‒ which you do discuss for e.g. Ismaîn ‒ so I was unsure on the form it should take. It does say there are a number of phonotactic oddities, so I guess this is one? I just guessed at -ni- by analogy with the -i- after liquids rule in -r verbs. I like that it's imyasnnai but I wonder if it might be worth just slightly clarifying that in the grammar to make it clear that these forms are legal. Apologies if I am misreading it and already is clear!!)

Often I'm just as much at the mercy of the grammar as you are. The printed version on my shelf is from 1994, and the last major revision is 2018. So I'm going by the text and what exceptions it permits.

You're quite right that imyasnnai is odd in phonotactics. I think it's possible to pronounce correctly, with [n:], but this is probably a word that anticipated the loss of double consonants. There is a lot I could add on allophony, but for now probably just read the Basfahe grammar in conjunction with the EMV one.

(Er, not that you should go for a Basfahe pronunciation. It's just an indication of what changes were already common.)

Ok, these are useful guidelines! Thanks

sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 3:49 am Haha, yeah. So, on that note, I'm curious what might happen to this fun pair (semantically) when they merge (phonetically):

ranát - n - bureaucracy; entrenched fogbound power structure; the establishment, the status quo [play on rana ‘frog’ and ränát ‘hierarchy’]
ränát - n - hierarchy

The pun is kind of spoiled in speech, though not in writing.

But there are undoubtedly newer and more vicious jabs at bureaucrats in MV, as the targets are now far more annoying!

Came upon a rather intriguing Modern Verdurian term in the dictionary today: Akalmea (as an example of an otherworld).

I presume this constitutes spoilers, but just want to register excitement. (It's also possible I've missed this, or it's actually an old term.)

sasasha wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 2:20 pm Came upon a rather intriguing Modern Verdurian term in the dictionary today: Akalmea (as an example of an otherworld).

*checks notes*

Ah yes, that comes in during the 3800s. Faďnesa, druk esë...

A couple of questions:

I did notice that some phonological differences between EMV and MV are similar to those between European and Brazilian Portuguese (the major exception being monophthongization in Verdurian; Portuguese, like Sarroc, loves its diphthongs)... so along those lines:

* Pronouncing "ny" and "my" as "y": would there perchance be people who do this but also nasalize the previous vowel, as with Brazilian Portuguese "nh"?

* One difference between PT-PT and PT-BR is that the former has /ð/ but the latter doesn't... furthermore, all continental Germanic languages except maybe Danish collapsed /ð/ into /d/... how likely would you think it for MV speakers to start pronouncing ď the same as d, or make them allophones as in Spanish, or with Spanish / Xurnese b/v?

BGMan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 3:39 pm * Pronouncing "ny" and "my" as "y": would there perchance be people who do this but also nasalize the previous vowel, as with Brazilian Portuguese "nh"?

Yeah, I think this is likely... nasalization usually precedes loss of /n/, I believe.

* One difference between PT-PT and PT-BR is that the former has /ð/ but the latter doesn't... furthermore, all continental Germanic languages except maybe Danish collapsed /ð/ into /d/... how likely would you think it for MV speakers to start pronouncing ď the same as d, or make them allophones as in Spanish, or with Spanish / Xurnese b/v?

I've considered it, but decided to keep the /ð/. I think it's just historical contingency that /ð/ was lacking in continental Europe, especially as it developed from /d/ in Spanish and Greek.

But who knows what happens in Future Verdurian.

This might interest some... I created a pixel font for Verdurian. This is a part of the Almea+400 project, but it's a public post.

Here's a sample:



(There's one error in the text which sasasha already found. Hopefully just the one!)