intergermanic, interslavic

Travis   Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:38 pm GMT
>>While Anglic and North Germanic lacks "ge-" or its reflexes, IG is consciously not designed off of Anglic or North Germanic to begin with.<<

I should have noted that Anglic historically *did* have reflexes of "ge-" prefixes, as /je/ in Old English and /i/ in Middle English; such were only lost with the transition from Late Middle English to Early New English.
Travis   Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:51 pm GMT
Oh, and I forgot to mention - the vowel system of IG is really based off of that of Low Saxon, as it lacks the diphthongization of WG /i:/ and /u:/ as in Middle German and Low Franconian, the shift WG /e:/ to /ia/ and WG /o:/ to /uo/, which in turn shifted to Low Franconian and Middle German /i:/, /u:/, and /y:/ via /i@/, /u@/, and /y@/, which are still reflected in Upper German, and it has the reflex /e:/ for WG /iu/ and /eu/ rather than /i:/. On the other hand, it does not overtly reflect the diphthongization of WG /e:/ and /o:/ (and /a:/ due to umlaut) as /eI/, /oU/, and /2Y/ as in Low Saxon; this is left up to the speaker in question to decide. Hence the word for English "sea" is written "see" reflecting /ze:/ rather than "sei" reflecting /zeI/ and the word for English "good" is written "good" reflecting /go:d/ rather than "goud" reflecting /goUd/.
Guest   Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:51 pm GMT
Travis, I like it very much.
I actually also came up with my own version of Inter-Germanic a couple of years ago, but it was never as neatly folded out as your is. Hats off!

Mine however was, as you might unsurprisingly expect, based more off of Anglo-Frisian and Scandinavian. Funny huh?

This is why when I first saw a post a few days ago alluding to your IG, I was immediately drawn in.
Travis   Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:01 pm GMT
>>and it has the reflex /e:/ for WG /iu/ and /eu/ rather than /i:/<<

I should have noted that that was via historical /i@/, and merged with /i:/ in Middle German and Low Franconian. Note that such is not really systematically reflected as well as it should be in IG - for instance, I have "licht" /lixt/ for English "light" rather than what it *should* be systematically, that is, "leecht" /le:xt/, reflecting an underlying WG /eu/ which is clearly indicated by early Old English "leoht", Old Frisian "liacht", and West Frisian "ljocht".
Travis   Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:19 pm GMT
>>"leecht" /le:xt/<<

Again, this is another thing - the reflexes of /eu/ and /iu/ do not seem to be exactly clear with respect to what length they should be. For instance, English "deep" in IG is "deep" /de:p/, based off of NLS "deep" /de:p/ and ME "deep" /de:p/, reflecting an underlying PG /eu/ (for comparison, look at Old Norse "djup"). Likewise, Dutch has "diep" /di:p/, which also has a long vowel. On the other hand, look at Dutch "lucht" /lYxt/, which clearly reflects a short vowel even though the /Y/ in Dutch "lucht" *also* reflects PG /eu/... Likewise, there is Low Saxon "lecht", which would imply /lExt/ even though one person on Lowlands-L said that they really pronounce "lecht" as /lE:@xt/ (which would indicate a long vowel despite the spelling). However, the use of /I/ in Standard German "Licht" seems to be anomalous, as in Middle High German there was "lieht" /li@xt/, which would have regularly become /li:Ct/ not /lICt/. This is similar to Old English "lēht" (older "lēoht"), which reflects a long vowel rather than a short vowel.
Guest   Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:28 pm GMT
Right. Those diphthongs, PGmc, Scand. and even Low are difficult to reconcile to something that could be used among all. I usually opt to flat out simplify them.

I usually made them regular: ēo > i: (spelt "ie"), basically using Modern English vowels with Middle English length (for those Mod Eng vowels that diverged and became short), but this sometimes went to u: (spelt "eu"). So that the hearer would be able to understand if they knew even a smattering of English--sounds like English/Middle English where's yours does German.
Guest   Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:29 pm GMT
<<regular>> I mean "level"
Guest   Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:31 pm GMT
you really know your stuff though, I never got down to the nitty gritties like you just did in the posts above...

you've definitely made a science out of this!
Travis   Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:35 pm GMT
>>I usually made them regular: ēo > i: (spelt "ie"), basically using Modern English vowels with Middle English length (for those Mod Eng vowels that diverged and became short), but this sometimes went to u: (spelt "eu"). So that the hearer would be able to understand if they knew even a smattering of English--sounds like English/Middle English where's yours does German.<<

I would say that mine often actually looks like both Low Saxon and English orthographically but sounds rather unlike English (and instead only like Low Saxon), due to its heavy use of /e:/, /o:/, and /2:/ where New English has /i:/ and /u:/ (and some other reflexes due to sporadic vowel shortening at various points), where Middle German has /i:/, /u:/, and /y:/, and where Dutch has /i:/ and /y:/.
Travis   Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:46 pm GMT
Now that I think about it, I would probably myself favor the consistent use of /e:/ for PG /eu/ and /y:/ for PG /iu/, now that I think about it. That would result in "leecht" /le:xt/ (rather than current "licht" /lIxt/) for English "light" and "lüüd" /ly:d/ (which I am already using) for English "people" (Standard German "Leute").
Travis   Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:51 pm GMT
Note that the English "light" as in weight (German "leicht") would be "liicht" /li:xt/* not "leecht" /le:xt/

* from looking back I found I had decided upon "ii" for /i:/ in closed syllables and "i" for /i:/ in open syllables, as "ie" for /i:/ is a bit of a Germanism/Dutchism, and the orthographic "ie" actually reflects historical /i@/ not /i:/; also, in writing Alemannic dialects you will commonly see "ii" or "y" used for /i:/ and "ie" used for /i@/, and Dutch "ij" actually reflects historical /i:/.
Guest   Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:42 pm GMT
for me, light (noun) = lieht (li:t [h is silent, for etymologic purpose only])
light (adj) = liiht or lijht (laIt)
Guest   Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:06 pm GMT
Travis, do you speak German. You always seem so modest about this.
Travis   Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:15 pm GMT
>>Travis, do you speak German. You always seem so modest about this.<<

I would say no, simply because I really have never had a chance to be able to speak it well enough to say that I can actually speak; even though I've known a number of Germans over the years, they've *always* spoken German here except amongst other Germans at home. That is, I can speak quite basic German, but beyond that I really need to have a good dictionary at hand because my German vocabulary which I am able to actually use on the fly (and still get things like plural forms and genders right) is unfortunately rather limited.
Travis   Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:26 pm GMT
That was supposed to be "they've *always* spoken English here" above.