Re: Guess the Word in Romlangs 2
Posted: 31 Oct 2020 22:23
Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
https://cbbforum.com/
I think you know the word
I can't speak for Creyeditor or anyone else, but I don't believe I do.
I really do not know it. Latin/Romance is not my main area of expertise. Maybe I know, but I am just blanking on it right now.shimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Nov 2020 19:19I can't speak for Creyeditor or anyone else, but I don't believe I do.
Thank you so much. I entered a bit late, so I might have missed some of these points.shimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Nov 2020 19:19 Hopefully this is an accurate summary of what's been confirmed so far:
àcogliuac
/əkoˈʎwak/
- Typically, although not exclusively, used as an adverb.
- Descended "from three words in Latin (some of which were inflected)".
- The first word began with short <e> in Classical Latin, which changed to /a/ in "virtually every Romance language".
- The word does not have an obvious connection to "water" or "wheels".
- None of the three Latin words are related to colligō or illūc, none were 1st declension nouns, and none were prefixed with con-.
- The first of the three words was not a preposition, and the third was not suffixed with -cus or -āticus.
I should perhaps have realized that it’s much easier to imagine knowing the word if you know the word.Creyeditor wrote: ↑11 Nov 2020 20:20I really do not know it. Latin/Romance is not my main area of expertise. Maybe I know, but I am just blanking on it right now.shimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Nov 2020 19:19I can't speak for Creyeditor or anyone else, but I don't believe I do.
All that looks correct. And at least one of the three words was a second declension noun in Latinshimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Nov 2020 19:19 Hopefully this is an accurate summary of what's been confirmed so fa
àcogliuac
/əkoˈʎwak/
- Typically, although not exclusively, used as an adverb.
- Descended "from three words in Latin (some of which were inflected)".
- The first word began with short <e> in Classical Latin, which changed to /a/ in "virtually every Romance language".
- The word does not have an obvious connection to "water" or "wheels".
- None of the three Latin words are related to colligō or illūc, none were 1st declension nouns, and none were prefixed with con-.
- The first of the three words was not a preposition, and the third was not suffixed with -cus or -āticus.
Were any of the three Latin words 2nd declension nouns?
Ah, no worries! That's certainly true, but it can indeed be easy to forget.
Hmm… I'm trying to think of rather broad questions that could potentially help move things along.
At least one of them is a noun
None of them are verbs
None of the words in Latin were adjectives (to my knowledge)
Hopefully I didn't make this more confusingshimobaatar wrote: ↑11 Nov 2020 19:19 Hopefully this is an accurate summary of what's been confirmed so far:
àcogliuac
/əkoˈʎwak/
- Typically, although not exclusively, used as an adverb.
- Descended "from three words in Latin (some of which were inflected)".
- The first word began with short <e> in Classical Latin, which changed to /a/ in "virtually every Romance language".
- The word does not have an obvious connection to "water" or "wheels".
- None of the three Latin words are related to colligō or illūc, none were 1st declension nouns, and none were prefixed with con-.
- The first of the three words was not a preposition, and the third was not suffixed with -cus or -āticus.
- The first Latin word, if it were ecce, would result in a word like açogliuac, rather than acogliuac. The first Latin word is not ecce, but something similar. (Of note, it might be useful to see that that change between Classical Latin and "virtually every Romance language" means that the word might be found more easily in a repository of Proto-Romance or Vulgar Latin words
- The second Latin word is HOC actually HŌC, but I'm not too picky
- At least one of the words (ie the third word) is a 2nd declension noun
- Depending on how you splice it, the second word might be inflected, but the second word might not actually be inflected, and the third word might be inflected, since the first word might be inflected.
- If you're not sure how the phonological segments of one word might have worked around the context of a word (which is a completely good thing to wonder about, in some Romance languages the final 'c' in words was elided early on, for example eccum hic became aquí rather than acui in Spanish, yet in Romanian it became aci- two different, contradictory trajectories) you can always ask me what happened to the 'c' or what would happen if HŌC had been, I dunno HŌ instead? - For the record, I would always be open to this.
Good question, although perhaps I should have been clearer in my post to make it less open ended. It definitely wasn't elided like the 'c' in hoc ille in French (oui). It's that g. Hopefully that explains why ILLE or ILLUC couldn't be the progenitor of acogliuac- It would result in acogxe, acogxuc [akogʒe akogʒu]. That might actually be two hints in one
qwed117 wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020 06:25 If you're not sure how the phonological segments of one word might have worked around the context of a word (which is a completely good thing to wonder about, in some Romance languages the final 'c' in words was elided early on, for example eccum hic became aquí rather than acui in Spanish, yet in Romanian it became aci- two different, contradictory trajectories) you can always ask me what happened to the 'c' or what would happen if HŌC had been, I dunno HŌ instead? - For the record, I would always be open to this.
I find these two statements a bit confusing/difficult to interpret, personally, but the other three were quite helpful.