Page 1 of 2

Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 2:27 pm
by þeprussianfrog
Image
A fully tonal language in Europe, related to Celtic but not quite so, and one of Iberia's three* "relics"... Here comes Modern Lusitanian!
More: show
Lusitanian language, also known as Lozhine, Algarvian, Lusitan or Eghervian (endonym: loẓíṅè) is an Indo-European language, natively spoken in southwestern Iberian Peninsula (in the Kingdom of the Algarve, as well as parts of Portugal and Spain), on the Azores and Madeira, and by the Lusitanian diaspora around the world (most importantly including the Americas, Benelux, Middle East and North Africa). It constitutes an independent branch of the Indo-European family, Lusitanic, which is closely linked to the Celtic languages in the Celto-Lusitanic group, and, possibly to the Italic languages in the even larger, disputed grouping, Italo-Celtic (also known as Italo-Celto-Lusitanic). The number of Lusitanian speakers around the world is roughly 4.5-7 millions.

Lusitanian is clearly very closely related to Celtic.

The main phonological differences between Proto-Lusitanic and early Proto-Celtic are:
- reflections of Proto-Indo-European *p (Proto-Lusitanic retained it; Proto-Celtic lost it)
- reflections of the syllabic resonants *m̥, *n̥ (*am, *an in Celtic; *em, *en in Lusitanic)

Historically, there were proposals to link Lusitanian more closely with Italic, based on the latter's preservation of *p and similar reflections of the syllabic resonants in some of the Italic languages, such as Latin, as well as some similar morphological innovations. However, different features link Lusitanian closer to Celtic, including the reflexes of aspirated stops, the eRa > aRa change and preservation of the dual. Still, the Italo-Celtic proposal still includes Lusitanic.

Either way, the Early Proto-Lusitanic speakers probably originated from an area near the Alps, similarly to the proposed Celtic and Italic homelands (and possibly between these two). After that, they migrated west, into Iberia, and eventually settled in the western region: ancient Lusitania roughly corresponds to the central Portugal, western Spain and northern Algarve. Proposed links to the linguistically unclassified ancient peoples of Central Europe, most notably Ligurians and Belgians, are unclear; it is possible they were Para-Lusitanic speakers. In addition to the group known (to Romans and Greeks) as Lusitani, other adjacent Western Iberian tribes such as Vettones, Turduli and Conii, may have also been Lusitanic speakers. It remains unclear which specific area did the dialect ancestral to Modern Lusitanian originate from; however, after the Roman conquest of Iberia, the probable territory where it did survive was Serra da Estrela mountain range, in modern day Eastern Portugal. The migration southwards happened later, all the way in the Middle Ages.

Phonology and orthography

The feature of Lusitanian that is, perhaps, the most unusual for the Indo-European family is the presence of lexical tone; unlike other tonal European languages, such as Swedish, Latvian and Limburgish, that possess a pitch-accent system associated with stressed syllables only, Lusitanian has independent tones on every syllable, making it fully tonal.

When did tone evolve in Lusitanian is rather unclear; however, various Medieval sources describe the speech of Algarvians as "melodic-sounding" and compare it to the Ancient Greek pitch accent or tonal systems of West African languages, which indicates that some degree of tonality must have already been around back then. The tone system first arose when Lusitanian lost a three-way distinction between it's consonants (fricatives and stops): "fortis" voiceless (likely geminated), "lenis" voiceless and voiced, with the latter two merging but giving different tones to the following vowels ("lenis" voiceless gave high tone and voiced gave low tone). "Fortis" voiceless shortened, but gave vowels high tone as well. All other consonants were voiced and gave low tones.

Modern Lusitanian posesses two main register tones, high and low, and two contour tones, rising and falling. Tone is vital for distinguishing the meaning of the word: for instance, geṛ (with low tone) means "leg" and géṛ (with rising tone) means "car".

Aside from tones, Lusitanian posesses other phonological features that are rather rare in Western European languages, but common in Northwest Africa, which is also close to its homeland: uvular plosive [q] and glottal stop [ʔ]. These occur in the abundant borrowings from languages such as Arabic - but also, less commonly, in words inherited from PIE.

Features similar to other modern Iberian languages include the contrast between two rhotic consonants: "soft" [ɾ] and "hard" [ʁ] and the 5-monophthong vowel system.

The vowel system consists of 5 monophthongs, as mentioned above, and 4 diphthongs. Vowels aren't distinguished by length; syllables with any of these can carry any of the 4 tones.

Monophthongs

i u
e o
a

Diphthongs

au ai
ou oi

The consonant system:

Nasals

m n ɲ

Stops

p t k q ʔ
b d g

Affricates

tʃ

Fricatives

f s ʃ χ h
v z ʒ ʁ

Approximants

ɫ ʎ j w

Flaps

ɾ

Lusitanian is written with Latin alphabet. Modern Lusitanian alphabet includes 33 letters (49 with all the vowel variants included):

A a [a] (Ā ā, À à, Á á)
B b [b]
C c [k]
Ċ ċ [tʃ]
D d [d]
E e [e] (Ē ē, È è, É é)
F f [f]
G g [g]
H h [h]
I i [i] (Ī ī, Ì ì, Í í)
J j [j]
K k [k]
L l [ɫ]
Ḷ ḷ [ʎ]
M m [m]
N n [n]
Ṅ ṅ [ɲ]
O o [o] (Ō ō, Ò ò, Ó ó)
P p [p]
Q q [q]
R r [ɾ]
Ṛ ṛ [ʁ]
S s [s]
Ṣ ṣ [ʃ]
T t [t]
U u [u] (Ū ū, Ù ù, Ú ú)
V v [v]
W w [w]
X x [x]
Y y [j]
Z z [z]
Ẓ ẓ [ʒ]
‘ [ʔ]

Tones are marked with diacritics (markeed characters are typically not considered distinct letters and are seen as additional forms of the basic letter).

Ā ā Ō ō Ē ē Ī ī Ū ū - high
À à Ò ò È è Ì ì Ù ù - falling
A a O o E e I i U u - low
Á á Ó ó É é Í í Ú ú - rising

Orthography is heavily phonetic, and was reformed recently, soon after the Algarve achieved independence. However, an old-style orthography, influenced by Portuguese, is still commonly found in older texts and is often used by Lusitanian diaspora outside the Algarve, and Arabic script is used by some Muslim Lusitanians in the Middle East.

Grammar

Grammatically, Lusitanian is moderately inflected, with a large number of more analytic features (though relatively far lower than, say, English).

In nominals, there are two genders (masculine and feminine), two numbers (singular and plural, with notable remnants of dual, which attestedly persisted as a functional element well into the Early Middle Ages), three cases (nominative, accusative, genitive - but see below) and an innovated system of animacy (animate and inanimate).
(Sometimes, the retained Indo-European system of gender and the innovated Lusitanic system of animacy are blended, and animacy is seen as a subgender; thus, Lusitanian is seen instead as having animate masculine, animate feminine, inanimate masculine and inanimate feminine genders).

Lusitanian system of animacy evolved after the endings of nominative and accusative forms merged (this is also when the neuter gender disappeared, blending, primarily, with masculine) in most declension types; afterwards, a new distinction between animate and inanimate objects developed, in a similar fashion to Slavic: genitive being partially repurposed as a new accusative for the animate nominals. Thus, technically, there are 2 somewhat different case systems in Lusitanian animate and inanimate words, both consisting of 2 cases: nominative and accusative-genitive in animates, nominative-accusative + genitive in inanimates.

An example of animate noun is ip (stallion), with nominative form ip and accusative-genitive form ibú.
An example of inanimate noun is bín (marshland), with nominative-accusative form bín and genitive form bíṅù.

Adjectives in Lusitanian overwhelmingly follow the noun. The language is heavily prepositional. Articles are only definite (similarly to Irish, Basque and Arabic, and distinctly from Romance), and are proclitic and linked with a hyphen. Clitics such as prepositions and articles carry tone, and via tone sandhi influence the content word (compare loẓíṅè and zí-lòẓíṅè).

Verbs in Lusitanian are less inflectional than those in neighbouring Romance languages; far more analytic forms are present. Rather synthetic, though, is the present conjugation, as shown below:

ẓilgo - I hold
ẓilẓizú - thou hold
ẓilẓiẓú - he/she/it holds
ẓilẓimzú - we hold
ẓilẓidzú - you hold
ẓilẓiṅú - they hold

Lexicon

Lusitanians, living at the crossroads of different cultures and being under the rule of various external powers (most importantly Romans, Visigoths, Arabs and Portuguese) at different points in their history, ended up incorporating an extensive number of loanwords into their language. Even the name of the modern Lusitanian-majority state, Algarve (Eṛérv) is a Portuguese-influenced Arabic word in origins, coming from Arabic (الغرب), literally "the west", with final -v influenced by Portuguese Algarve. An interesting tendence in Lusitanian when adapting words from non-tonal, stress-based languages is the shift of the stressed syllable into the high tone, and the unstressed syllables into the low tone, and following tone sandhi changing some of those into rising/falling.
*One of the other "relics" is, obviously, Basque. And the other one, also sharing the same timeline as Modern Lusitanian, is the Azorean-Madeiran Gothic, the last surviving East Germanic language (ironically, further west than any West/North Germanic language's native area), spoken nowadays only in the parts of Azores and Madeira after going extinct in mainland Iberia.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 3:24 pm
by WeepingElf
An Indo-European language of Western Europe, descended from ancient Lusitanian - with tones!? That rocks! Of course, I'd like to see the sound changes. How did that tone system arise?

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 3:25 pm
by Travis B.
Just so you know, when putting things like 'i' and 'u' in brackets on this particular forum you can use [ bk ] ... [ /bk ] (without the extra spaces); e.g. [ bk ]i[ /bk ] comes out as [i].

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 3:33 pm
by Travis B.
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 3:24 pm An Indo-European language of Western Europe, descended from ancient Lusitanian - with tones!? That rocks! Of course, I'd like to see the sound changes. How did that tone system arise?
It should be remembered that tonality is found in multiple places in IE, including North Germanic (Swedish, Norwegian, and some Danish dialects), West Germanic (some Franconian varieties), Slavic (Serbo-Croatian, Slovene), Baltic (Latvian), and Indo-Aryan (Punjabi), so having another IE language in Western Europe with tonality is not that odd.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 3:38 pm
by þeprussianfrog
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 3:24 pm An Indo-European language of Western Europe, descended from ancient Lusitanian - with tones!? That rocks! Of course, I'd like to see the sound changes. How did that tone system arise?
The emergence of early tonal system is described in the introduction, but here's some more details.

At first, the distinction between fortis and lenis voiceless consonants arose in Early Lusitanian.
Sources of this change included, primarily, gemination: *xt -> *tt/*t (fortis) and labialization of labiovelars: *kʷ -> *pp/*p (fortis).

Thus, there was a three-way distinction of sound in stops and fricatives: fortis voiceless (*pp, *tt, *ss, etc.), lenis voiceless (*p, *t, *s, etc.) and voiced (*b, *d, *z, etc.)

Then, lenis voiceless and voiced merged, but lenis voiceless gave following vowels high tone and voiced gave them low tone:
*pa -> *ba˦
*ba -> *ba˨

Fortis voiceless became the new "basic" voiceless phonemes, and gave high tone:

*ppa -> *pa˦

Vowels after nasals, approximants and rhotics all gained low tone.

The next part of tonogenesis happened notably later and included the arising of contour tones, which happened via high tone vowels becoming rising after voiced consonants:

*ba˦ -> *ba˩˥

and word-final *h disappearing and giving falling tone to the preceding high tone vowel.

*pa˦h -> *pa˥˩

Also, tone sandhi formed some of the falling/rising tones and continues to synchronically do so, especially in the context of clitics.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 3:38 pm
by þeprussianfrog
Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 3:25 pm Just so you know, when putting things like 'i' and 'u' in brackets on this particular forum you can use [ bk ] ... [ /bk ] (without the extra spaces); e.g. [ bk ]i[ /bk ] comes out as [i].
Neat, thx! Will do.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 3:41 pm
by þeprussianfrog
Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 3:33 pm
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 3:24 pm An Indo-European language of Western Europe, descended from ancient Lusitanian - with tones!? That rocks! Of course, I'd like to see the sound changes. How did that tone system arise?
It should be remembered that tonality is found in multiple places in IE, including North Germanic (Swedish, Norwegian, and some Danish dialects), West Germanic (some Franconian varieties), Slavic (Serbo-Croatian, Slovene), Baltic (Latvian), and Indo-Aryan (Punjabi), so having another IE language in Western Europe with tonality is not that odd.
I was particularly inspired by Punjabi in the question of "tonogenesis with little to no outside influence" for Lusitanian (there's not really any tonal neighbours, aside from an occasional Sub-Saharan African trader travelling to Al-Andalus and I think some Basque dialects with pitch accent).
Punjabi also had barely any tonal neighbours, yet it went tonal.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 4:18 pm
by Travis B.
þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 3:41 pm
Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 3:33 pm
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 3:24 pm An Indo-European language of Western Europe, descended from ancient Lusitanian - with tones!? That rocks! Of course, I'd like to see the sound changes. How did that tone system arise?
It should be remembered that tonality is found in multiple places in IE, including North Germanic (Swedish, Norwegian, and some Danish dialects), West Germanic (some Franconian varieties), Slavic (Serbo-Croatian, Slovene), Baltic (Latvian), and Indo-Aryan (Punjabi), so having another IE language in Western Europe with tonality is not that odd.
I was particularly inspired by Punjabi in the question of "tonogenesis with little to no outside influence" for Lusitanian (there's not really any tonal neighbours, aside from an occasional Sub-Saharan African trader travelling to Al-Andalus and I think some Basque dialects with pitch accent).
Punjabi also had barely any tonal neighbours, yet it went tonal.
As I mentioned in another thread here, the dialect of English here (mind you, what I say here may be true for other NAE dialects, because jcb has also remarked on limited tonality in his NAE dialect) has developed a tonality of sorts where the pitch contour of syllables derives from consonants' fortis/lenis values but if an intervocalic consonant disappears (e.g. in little, sometimes written li'l) it may undergo cheshirization, not just with regard to vowel length but also with regard to pitch.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 4:35 pm
by Raphael
Stuff like this makes me wish I would know enough about the relevant matters to reply to this with something more insightful than "sounds great".

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Mon May 11, 2026 4:45 pm
by bradrn
þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 2:27 pm Lusitanian system of animacy evolved after the endings of nominative and accusative forms merged (this is also when the neuter gender disappeared, blending, primarily, with masculine) in most declension types; afterwards, a new distinction between animate and inanimate objects developed, in a similar fashion to Slavic: genitive being partially repurposed as a new accusative for the animate nominals.
I’d be curious to hear more about this — in Slavic too, because I don’t know the history there.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 2:37 am
by þeprussianfrog
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 4:45 pm I’d be curious to hear more about this — in Slavic too, because I don’t know the history there.
So, modern Slavic languages (I will use Russian as an example) have animacy.

Basically, animate words have ACC = GEN, and inanimate have ACC = NOM.

For example,

кот (cat, animate)
это кот (this is a cat, cat in nom.)
вижу кота (I see a cat, cat in acc.)
усы кота (cat's whiskers, cat in gen.)

стол (table, inanimate)
это стол (this is a table, table in nom.)
вижу стол (I see a table, table in acc.)
поверхность стола (table's surface, table in gen.)

Both "cat" and "table" are masculine nouns of the II declension. In singular, only masculine (and some neuter*) nouns of the II declension have animacy distinction (feminine of the Ist declension will always have a distinct accusative, feminine of the IIIrd declension does always have acc=nom, regardless of semantics).
In plural, masculine, feminine and neuter nouns all have this distinction.

женщины (women, animate pl. f.) - вижу женщин (I see women, women in acc.) - платья женщин (dresses of the women, women in gen.)

чашки (teacups, inanimate pl.f.) - вижу чашки (I see teacups, teacups in acc.) - ручки чашек (handles of the teacups, teacups in gen.)

(*As for the neuter ones. Some speakers will use neuter words like млекопитающее (mammal), животное (animal), насекомое (insect), позвоночное (vertebrate) as animate in singular: вижу животного (acc=gen). Others will put those as inanimate: вижу животное (acc=nom). Both variations exist.)

Similarly to gender, animacy will undergo agreement with adjectives.

вижу красивый стол - вижу красивого кота.
(I see a beautiful table - I see a beautiful cat)

Animacy is not perfectly semantically matching; for example, мертвец and покойник are animate, труп is not (and all mean "dead person, corpse"); some words like бактерия "bacteria", кукла "doll" can be both animate and inanimate. However, the general tendency is: humans and animals are animate, plants and objects are not. Some words are inanimate in singular, but animate in plural: дитя "child", чудовище "monster".

Animacy in Slavic originated after accusative and nominative forms merged.

Proto-Balto-Slavic:
-as (nom)
-an (acc)

Proto-Slavic:
-ъ (nom)
-ъ (acc)

Then, genitive replaced the accusative form for the animates to maintain a more functional subject-object distinction (and animate words are more usually the subjects).
It happened gradually, starting with masculine singulars and later spreading to plurals and neuter words (in some cases); and yes, it actually evolved later than the Proto-Slavic stage.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 4:44 am
by WeepingElf
Did you come up with this idea after the position of Lusitanian was discussed in the Great PIE Thread, or have you been working on this before?

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 5:00 am
by þeprussianfrog
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 4:44 am Did you come up with this idea after the position of Lusitanian was discussed in the Great PIE Thread, or have you been working on this before?
Before that.
I've been slowly figuring this idea out for over a month (and the general idea to make a tonal Italo-Celtic language is far older, I've had it for over a year). Originally I wanted to make them migrate to Balearic Isles, but then decided with Algarve.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 6:09 am
by þeprussianfrog
Consonant gradation

Unlike its distant Celtic relatives, like Irish and Welsh, Lusitanian does not possess initial consonant mutation.

It does, however, have a similar element, though it would probably be more familiar to a Finnic, Slavic or Nganasan speaker. It is the system of stem-final consonant gradation, originating from the historical sound changes (palatalization, intervocalic voicing and final devoicing). Thus, the stem-final consonant changes depending on the grammatical case.

Lusitanian nominals have up to 3 possible mutations of stem-final consonants; verbs also have consonant gradation, but it is less extensive and usually only reflects 2 levels of gradation (V and P). Different declension paradigms involve different mutations in different cases.

The names of these mutations are devoicing (D), voicing (V) and palatalization (P). Two of them may overlap (either D+V or P+V).

D/V/P
k/g/ẓ
t/r/ẓ
p/b/b
f/v/v
s/z/z
l/l/ḷ
m/w/w
n/n/ṅ

Other consonants, such as ṅ, ċ, q and r, will not gradate.

An example of consonant gradation in nouns is the word "wolf":
loc (nom.sg., D) - logó (gen-acc.sg., P) - loẓú (nom.pl., V)

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 6:40 am
by WeepingElf
Fine. I guessed that you came up with it earlier, because it looks like something you have been working on for more than just a day or two. Initial mutations are a bit overdone (I have seen more modern Continental Celtic conlangs with them - often done badly - than without even though we don't have a shred of evidence of them in Continental Celtic), and it is nice that you didn't go down that road. But in your gradation chart, the labels for the second and third column obviously have to be switched.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 7:18 am
by þeprussianfrog
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 6:40 am Fine. I guessed that you came up with it earlier, because it looks like something you have been working on for more than just a day or two. Initial mutations are a bit overdone (I have seen more modern Continental Celtic conlangs with them - often done badly - than without even though we don't have a shred of evidence of them in Continental Celtic), and it is nice that you didn't go down that road. But in your gradation chart, the labels for the second and third column obviously have to be switched.
Whoops, an unnoticed typo with the chart columns. Thanks for pointing it out!

Mutations in non-Goidelic, non-Brythonic Celtic languages are definitely somewhat overdone (and at the same time, arguably an underexplored subject in conlanging that doesn't go for Celtic-inspired vibes at least).

I remember making a Galatian draft (it never went beyond the basics, may return to it someday.. possibly) which was essentially very un-Insular in most things: SVO basic word order, no mutations, enclitic article, postpositions and phonetic orthography closely resembling Turkish. I mean, makes sense for a Celtic language that migrated so far away and had practically no contact with Goidelic and Brythonic.

For Lusitanian, it is neither geographically adjacent to end up in a sprachbund, nor historically in significant contact, nor that closely related (Lusitanian and Irish are both Celto-Lusitanic, yeah, well... Ossetian and Sinhala are both Indo-Iranian, Hungarian and Northern Khanty are both Ugric, but... well). So, it being similar to Insular Celtic would probably be an unlikely coincidence at best.

Ironically, my other conlang, Fevornian, has a somewhat Irish-like palatalization system (for example, the contrasting of s-ʃ) while definitely being far more geographically and linguistically distant.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 7:50 am
by bradrn
þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 7:18 am Mutations in non-Goidelic, non-Brythonic Celtic languages are definitely somewhat overdone (and at the same time, arguably an underexplored subject in conlanging that doesn't go for Celtic-inspired vibes at least).
I have no less than two conlangs with extensive consonant mutation. One is polysynthetic and the other (unpublished) is African-esque. Neither one looks anything like Celtic.

(Actually even in natlangs consonant mutation is surprisingly widespread, and hardly any of those languages look like Celtic.)

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 8:08 am
by þeprussianfrog
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 7:50 am
þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 7:18 am Mutations in non-Goidelic, non-Brythonic Celtic languages are definitely somewhat overdone (and at the same time, arguably an underexplored subject in conlanging that doesn't go for Celtic-inspired vibes at least).
I have no less than two conlangs with extensive consonant mutation. One is polysynthetic and the other (unpublished) is African-esque. Neither one looks anything like Celtic.

(Actually even in natlangs consonant mutation is surprisingly widespread, and hardly any of those languages look like Celtic.)
Oh neat! I haven't heard of your conlangs before, sorry. The one you shared looks neat.

(And of course yeah, it's nowhere limited to Celtic in natlangs,. it's just that many conlangs with CM tend to be specifically rather Celtic-inspired.)

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 9:37 am
by WeepingElf
þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 7:18 am
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 6:40 am Fine. I guessed that you came up with it earlier, because it looks like something you have been working on for more than just a day or two. Initial mutations are a bit overdone (I have seen more modern Continental Celtic conlangs with them - often done badly - than without even though we don't have a shred of evidence of them in Continental Celtic), and it is nice that you didn't go down that road. But in your gradation chart, the labels for the second and third column obviously have to be switched.
Whoops, an unnoticed typo with the chart columns. Thanks for pointing it out!

Mutations in non-Goidelic, non-Brythonic Celtic languages are definitely somewhat overdone (and at the same time, arguably an underexplored subject in conlanging that doesn't go for Celtic-inspired vibes at least).
Some scholars have ascribed the Insular Celtic initial mutations to a pre-Celtic language of the British Isles that acted as a substratum, but that hypothesis is controversial as we don't know which language was spoken there before Celtic, so this amounts to an ignotum per ignotius ('unknown by even more unknown') argument, and the Semitic languages that have been proposed as the pre-Celtic substratum so often (IMHO a ridiculous idea) have nothing of that kind.

Given that I am working on a pre-Celtic language of the British Isles with Old Albic (an Indo-European language belonging to the fictional Hesperic branch, which constitutes a re-creation of the lost language of the Bell Beaker people and is coordinate to Anatolian), I have decided that this language phonetically ran together words within a phrase, and when the people of the British Isles shifted from Old Albic to Celtic, they retained this feature, resulting in phonemic consonant mutations later. The modern Albic languages will thus also have initial mutations similar to the Insular Celtic languages, though they are grammaticalized differently - in Avalonian, at least, they function as case markers, replacing the lost case endings (which were inherited from PIE) of Old Albic.
þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 7:18 am I remember making a Galatian draft (it never went beyond the basics, may return to it someday.. possibly) which was essentially very un-Insular in most things: SVO basic word order, no mutations, enclitic article, postpositions and phonetic orthography closely resembling Turkish. I mean, makes sense for a Celtic language that migrated so far away and had practically no contact with Goidelic and Brythonic.
Fine. I also have plans for two modern Continental Celtic languages on the back burner, and neither will have initial mutations (nor VSO word order), though one of them will have a lenition of post-vocalic stops similar to what happened in Western Romance (which is actually very similar to the Brythonic soft mutation - except that it never operated across word boundaries).
þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 7:18 am For Lusitanian, it is neither geographically adjacent to end up in a sprachbund, nor historically in significant contact, nor that closely related (Lusitanian and Irish are both Celto-Lusitanic, yeah, well... Ossetian and Sinhala are both Indo-Iranian, Hungarian and Northern Khanty are both Ugric, but... well). So, it being similar to Insular Celtic would probably be an unlikely coincidence at best.
Yep.
þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 7:18 am Ironically, my other conlang, Fevornian, has a somewhat Irish-like palatalization system (for example, the contrasting of s-ʃ) while definitely being far more geographically and linguistically distant.
Irish palatalization has nothing to do with initial mutations, and Brythonic has nothing like that.

Re: Lusitanian: on tones, animacy and uvulars in the westernmost Indo-European branch

Posted: Tue May 12, 2026 11:19 am
by þeprussianfrog
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 9:37 am
þeprussianfrog wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 7:18 am Ironically, my other conlang, Fevornian, has a somewhat Irish-like palatalization system (for example, the contrasting of s-ʃ) while definitely being far more geographically and linguistically distant.
Irish palatalization has nothing to do with initial mutations, and Brythonic has nothing like that.
I was just talking of an Insular Celtic-like feature in my conlang unrelated (beyond being Indo-European and Italo-Celtic if that's even a thing) to them.