Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

According to Mudrak's explanation, ićirğon seems to mean hardworking; -kon/gon is an agent suffix.

BTW, in Dybo's paper there is a Hungarian word tor < *dod-, which she identified as the only instance of PT *d > r, but can be explained by dissimilation:
Венг. tor ‘тризна, поминки; пир’ EWU: 1531, c 1138 г. как элемент имени собственного; реально – с 1552 г. Если не от tor-ok ‘глотка’ (что довольно сомнительно), то, возможно, из тюрк., причем не к сомнительному чагат. tor ‘пир’, а к ПТ *dod- ‘насыщаться, наполняться’, чув. tъʷran-, як. tot-, туркм. doj- VEWT: 483, EDT: 451, ЭСТЯ 1980: 251–252, Stachowski: 227. В булгарской фонетике; должен быть поздний: единственный пример с переходом d > r.
To be somewhat innovative, I suggest PT *d > ð > l after a vowel in this conlang; I'm not sure whether it increases homophony a great deal. I don't know how this sound change affects Danube Bulgar, and whether the Preslav dialect has vowel harmony. Perhaps it's lost as in Uzbek and colloquial Crimean Tatar?
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

Zythros Jubi wrote:
16 Jan 2020 05:17

BTW, in Dybo's paper there is a Hungarian word tor < *dod-, which she identified as the only instance of PT *d > r, but can be explained by dissimilation:
I doubt that Proto-Turkic had initial d- and g-; the phonemes occurring in said position are likely to be a product of Oghuz innovation.
whether the Preslav dialect has vowel harmony. Perhaps it's lost as in Uzbek and colloquial Crimean Tatar?
It can be (you may mean the loss of front-rounded vowels?), after all υ is used to transcribe /ɨ/ (or /ɪ/?), unlike /y/. The evidence hinges only on two words though.
Spoken Gagauz has also lost the two vowels, if I'm not mistaken.
To be somewhat innovative, I suggest PT *d > ð > l after a vowel in this conlang; I'm not sure whether it increases homophony a great deal.
No, but it will be somewhat irrealistic imho... (unless the Oghurlang is set in Afghanistan)

Anyway, thank you for reminding me to check the consonant-correspondences as well. We can confirm that intervocalic -t- stays as is : Венг. sátor ‘tent’ < ПТ *čātu/ïr: Тув. čadyr ‘чум, ша-лаш’, турк. čādyr ‘палатка, шатер’. (Dybo sees this word as a Slavicism though, due to its second vocal o)

š > l is confirmed : Венг. süllő ‘судак’ ПТ *sīλ / *sïλ ‘зуб, колышек’ *sīš, чув. šъl + suf. -leg,
см. Róna-Tas 1982: 150, Róna-Tas 1971: 396–398, ЭСТЯ 2003: 257: *sīλ-leg > *sīle ‘судак’ (туркм. sīle, чув. šъla). По культурным причинам естественно ожидать здесь раннебулгарского заимствования. Ср. рус. диал. донск. сула ‘судак’. Происхождение огубленности вторичное; в венг. – под влиянием второго слога, в рус. – интерпретация чув. ъ.

Was the rounding e > ü in Hungarian triggered by a labial environment? It occured in gyümölcs and bölcs, among other words I have yet to check.

By the way, since it has been very kind of you to let me offer my suggestions here, care to "officially" call it a collaborative project?

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

You might find this database extremely helpful. It list Proto-Turkic words and roots, along with outcomes in daughter languages, and complete with etymological notes.

http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query. ... g&morpho=0

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Vlürch »

dva_arla wrote:
15 Jan 2020 09:05
How, then, did you progress your Cyrillic-reading from being as good as five-year-old Russian toddlers or Likbez participants, for you must surely have once passed through that stage? (no offence intended)
Well, at first I got used to Cyrillic by trying to learn Kazakh. Then I just started making conlangs using the Cyrillic script, which is the method I'd suggest for learning any new writing system: learn the "standard" values of letters (as in, <п б т д к г> and <گ ك د ت ب پ> are usually something like /p b t d k g/, etc.) and start using them in a conlang or two (but of course, learning a natlang that uses said writing system at the same time is going to be helpful), and you'll get used to it sooner or later. With Cyrillic it took me maybe a month (if that), but with the Arabic script it took somewhat longer and I still mix up some letters in the middle of words sometimes (and obviously that's still excluding unwritten vowels), and I'll have to admit that with Hangul that hasn't worked in spite of three "serious" attempts (I've only learned to differentiate a couple of components) for some reason...
dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 09:01
No, but it will be somewhat irrealistic imho... (unless the Oghurlang is set in Afghanistan)
Isn't /d/ -> /l/ a common sound change in general, though? That's what I was told when I speculated that since the Mycenaean form has an initial /d/, Greek λαβύρινθος may have either originated from a language that had something like /d͡ɮ/ or that the shift /d/ -> /l/ may have had an intermediate /d͡ɮ/, which was said to be unnecessary... and it turns out that early Latin had that sound change, too.

But yeah, I'll agree that I'm not sure if there's a reason for it to happen in a language spoken in the part of Europe it's set in unless it went against some apparent areal trends; Romanian had /l/ -> /r/ and I also found a paper saying Bulgarian may be undergoing /l/ -> /w/, both of which are kind of going in the opposite direction, even if the specifics vary. The one about Bulgarian is kind of hilarious to read, actually, because the moral panic in it is so palpable; I'm pretty sure it's not a speech impediment if the majority of (even just young) speakers have it...
dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 10:42
You might find this database extremely helpful. It list Proto-Turkic words and roots, along with outcomes in daughter languages, and complete with etymological notes.

http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query. ... g&morpho=0
Are there really people who don't already know about Starostin's site? [:O] If so, I'll definitely second that!

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

Vlürch wrote:
16 Jan 2020 11:27
Then I just started making conlangs using the Cyrillic script, which is the method I'd suggest for learning any new writing system: learn the "standard" values of letters (as in, <п б т д к г> and <گ ك د ت ب پ> are usually something like /p b t d k g/, etc.) and start using them in a conlang or two (but of course, learning a natlang that uses said writing system at the same time is going to be helpful), and you'll get used to it sooner or later. With Cyrillic it took me maybe a month (if that), but with the Arabic script it took somewhat longer and I still mix up some letters in the middle of words sometimes (and obviously that's still excluding unwritten vowels)
Is it or just me, or is Arabic on screen less legible to the eye than Latin, Cyrillic, and Handzi of the same size? (or is it Times New Roman...)

My "Modern Khotanese" happen to be in the Persian script, and I happen to be learning Persian (with barely any commitment though...). But I don't think I'm going to create a conlang in Cyrillic soon...
and I'll have to admit that with Hangul that hasn't worked in spite of three "serious" attempts (I've only learned to differentiate a couple of components) for some reason...
Hangul is the most logical script there is in the world. I hate to have to remember you of a Korean saying: "A wise man can learn it in a night, a stupid man, in ten days." (though this goes to me too, partly because my attempts are less serious than yours). The letters can be essentially reduced to 9 consonants and 6 vowels, and the latter look mostly like shapes of the articulatory organs they are produced from:

ㄱ looks like a throat
ㄴ looks like a bent tongue
ㄹ looks like a thrill if you put your imagination onto it
and many other analogies that you can easily find in a tutorial site. The aspirates are simply the letters themselves with an addition of a line, and the "tense" letters simply doubled forms of the unaspirated "basic ones".

If your issue is with the vowels, then I place the blame on the ridiculous mainstream romanisation scheme (ai for ㅐ is more consistent than ae!). Instead, put the four "dotted" lettters to the compass, as shown below. Note: e sounds like the untressed German e; ı as in Turkish.

o
ㅓe aㅏ ㅡ ı ㅣi
u


All of the other "vowels" are digraphs of the above. You should be able to make sense of ai, oi, ui (these monophthongs are historically diphthongs), and bear in mind that ei = é. Feel free to clear any doubts; I feel that my little guide here is rather too "brash".

By the way, know of Korean learning materials and beginner's literature that isn't related to K-pop? (North Korean military and pop songs are the only ones that I am currently aware of).
1-2% of Russian and Swedish
Being a Finn, didn't you study Swedish at school?

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

I doubt that Proto-Turkic had initial d- and g-; the phonemes occurring in said position are likely to be a product of Oghuz innovation.
There seems to be a distinction between t-/d- and k-/g- in Oghuz languages (uncertain for Old/Orkhon Turkic; Old Oghuz Turkic are seldom attested?), and k-/g- distinction can account for the initial x-/k- opposition found in Tuva (x- can also occur before front vowels). Initial d- can also be found in some Turkic loanwords in Hungarian.
It can be (you may mean the loss of front-rounded vowels?)
Standard Uzbek has eliminated vowel harmony, and Crimean Tatar, I believe, is in the process of losing it. Slavic transcriptions of Danube Bulgar confused (both long short) a and e, as o (short) and a (long). But this does not necessarily mean that they have merged these two pairs, which Dybo thinks, is a feature of Bulgar languages (especially e>a as in Chuvash); however, Chuvash e>a is a late phenomenon as Rona-Tas pointed out, and before that Chuvash *a had become o(>u in standard variety).
No, but it will be somewhat irrealistic imho... (unless the Oghurlang is set in Afghanistan)
I'm just avoiding being too similar to Chuvash; besides *ð > l took place in Hungarian IIRC, and Eskel can form a Sprachbund/language area with Hungarian in earlier times (more Eastern Romance, Cuman and Slavic influence than Hungarian later on).
š > l is confirmed
Common Turkic *š has two origins: *l2č and *l2, as per Starostin et al., as can be deduced from *baš 'head' and *taːš 'stone', respectively.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Vlürch wrote:Isn't /d/ -> /l/ a common sound change in general, though? That's what I was told when I speculated that since the Mycenaean form has an initial /d/, Greek λαβύρινθος may have either originated from a language that had something like /d͡ɮ/ or that the shift /d/ -> /l/ may have had an intermediate /d͡ɮ/, which was said to be unnecessary... and it turns out that early Latin had that sound change, too.
Latin also has dingua>lingua. Vice versa, Malagasy (Standard Merina dialect) has systematic li>di, which is present in Ma'anyan but absent in some other Malagasy dialects, suggesting this change had happened before great migration; some Sinitic varieties also have li->ti- e.g. Fuzhou (抚州) dialect (which also has d>tʰ>h when not following i or j).
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

Zythros Jubi wrote:
16 Jan 2020 17:14
There seems to be a distinction between t-/d- and k-/g- in Oghuz languages (uncertain for Old/Orkhon Turkic; Old Oghuz Turkic are seldom attested?), and k-/g- distinction can account for the initial x-/k- opposition found in Tuva (x- can also occur before front vowels).
The oldest attested Turkic languages didn't have the two initial plosives, rendering their reconstruction for Proto-Turkic suspect. Also suggesting an Oghuz innovation is the well-known fact that Oghuz d- and g- occurred mostly only after front vowels.
Initial d- can also be found in some Turkic loanwords in Hungarian.
Words with d- and g- in Oghuz have Hungarian cognates in t- and k-: dingil - tengely, kék - gök, teve - deve, etc.

The Hungarian loanwords with d- are so few that we can dispense of them as products of irregular development.
Standard Uzbek has eliminated vowel harmony, and Crimean Tatar, I believe, is in the process of losing it. Slavic transcriptions of Danube Bulgar confused (both long short) a and e, as o (short) and a (long). But this does not necessarily mean that they have merged these two pairs, which Dybo thinks, is a feature of Bulgar languages (especially e>a as in Chuvash); however, Chuvash e>a is a late phenomenon as Rona-Tas pointed out, and before that Chuvash *a had become o(>u in standard variety).
I was referring to the o~ö u~ü merge though...
I'm just avoiding being too similar to Chuvash; besides *ð > l took place in Hungarian IIRC, and Eskel can form a Sprachbund/language area with Hungarian in earlier times (more Eastern Romance, Cuman and Slavic influence than Hungarian later on).
The shift happened very very early, when the Magyars were still dwelling in their urheimat in Yugra.... I think Eskel (and Bulgar) is already distinct enough from Chuvash, with their different vocalism and lack of Uralic influence among other things.
š > l is confirmed
Common Turkic *š has two origins: *l2č and *l2, as per Starostin et al., as can be deduced from *baš 'head' and *taːš 'stone', respectively.
I was aware of that; I was refering to Proto-Turkic š.

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Is there a Proto-Turkic š? There are only *l2č and *l2 in Starostin's system. As for *ð > l I just want a bit of distinctiveness, after all. The d > r in Volga Bulgar is late and it is unknown whether it happened in Khazar.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Vlürch »

dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 13:45
Is it or just me, or is Arabic on screen less legible to the eye than Latin, Cyrillic, and Handzi of the same size? (or is it Times New Roman...)
It's not just you, it just gets muddier and looks smaller even if it's technically the same size for some reason.
dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 13:45
My "Modern Khotanese" happen to be in the Persian script
Ooh, I hadn't seen your Modern Khotanese thread before but I have to say that's also a really cool idea! If you continue posting about that (assuming you've continued working on it), I hope to be keeping an eye on it.
dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 13:45
I happen to be learning Persian (with barely any commitment though...).
Persian is a really cool language, it's one of those languages that can sound badass but also beautiful at practically the same time. It having /æ/ and /ɒː/ rather than just /ɑ/ and /ɑː/ or whatever is something I just can't help but love and want to use in some conlangs... but there's the "problem" that not even most of the natlangs that have had extensive contact with Persian have adopted that vowel weirdness (even with Uzbek it's kind of debatable), so for a conlang to have it the requirement would be INTENSE contact with Persian.
dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 13:45
But I don't think I'm going to create a conlang in Cyrillic soon...
One option would be to have an alternative Cyrillic orthography for one that doesn't normally use it, or you could just transcribe natlangs that don't normally use Cyrillic in Cyrillic, which will often also be a fun exercise in that it allows you to think about different possible conventions. For example, ю кән ўрайт Иңлиш ин Кырилик... ор из ит Сырилик? Сирилик? Кирилик? Ю дисайд! (you can write English in Cyrillic... or is it Syrillic? Sirillic? Kirillic? You decide!) Like, there I used <ә> and <ң> for /æ/ and /ŋ/ like Kazakh, etc. and also retained the generally silent <w> in "write" (both to keep it from becoming homographic with "right" and because it's not silent for me tbh) and spelled "is" with <з> to reflect that the <s> is voiced. Obviously your Cyrillisation of English would be different from mine in some way, and even I'd likely do it differently two days of the same week, but that's what makes it a fun exercise.
dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 13:45
Hangul is the most logical script there is in the world.
Well, yeah, but the problem with that for me is that I just can't tell the letters apart. No idea why, but my brain doesn't even register most of them as being different, with the exception of the ones that are very clearly different (those being just ᄉ,ᄊ,ᄋ,ᄌ and ᄍ), it's like my brain sees Hangul and it just freezes up completely.
dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 13:45
By the way, know of Korean learning materials and beginner's literature that isn't related to K-pop? (North Korean military and pop songs are the only ones that I am currently aware of).
Unfortunately I don't know any learning materials for Korean except stuff explaining its grammar and whatnot, haha.
dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 13:45
Being a Finn, didn't you study Swedish at school?
Yeah, but I slept throughout 99% of Swedish classes. Of course, I kind of regret that now and have been trying to learn a little Swedish, but I mean, for teens at least back then learning Swedish was seen as one of the worst things you could possibly do, so nobody wanted to learn any and the few that did were bullied for it.
dva_arla wrote:
16 Jan 2020 18:02
Zythros Jubi wrote:
16 Jan 2020 17:14
There seems to be a distinction between t-/d- and k-/g- in Oghuz languages (uncertain for Old/Orkhon Turkic; Old Oghuz Turkic are seldom attested?), and k-/g- distinction can account for the initial x-/k- opposition found in Tuva (x- can also occur before front vowels).
The oldest attested Turkic languages didn't have the two initial plosives, rendering their reconstruction for Proto-Turkic suspect. Also suggesting an Oghuz innovation is the well-known fact that Oghuz d- and g- occurred mostly only after front vowels.
Huh, this is the first time I'm hearing about Proto-Turkic not having had a distinction between /t k/ and /d g/. I mean, I've heard about it having had a distinction of aspiration or fortis/lenis or whatever rather than voicing, but not having a distinction at all? [:O]
Zythros Jubi wrote:
16 Jan 2020 17:14
besides *ð > l took place in Hungarian IIRC
It's possible (likely?) that the Proto-Uralic sound was something like /ɬ/ rather than /ð/, though.
Zythros Jubi wrote:
17 Jan 2020 04:52
Is there a Proto-Turkic š? There are only *l2č and *l2 in Starostin's system.
Probably not, at least not AFAIK. The reconstructed sound is /*ĺ/, which may have been /ɬ/ or something similar.
Zythros Jubi wrote:
17 Jan 2020 04:52
As for *ð > l I just want a bit of distinctiveness, after all.
Distinctiveness is always good, yeah, and if you need a justification, you could maybe have that be due to Uralic (or specifically Ugric) influence. Or maybe it's just a nice little quirk of the language that mystifies conscholars, those are always nice.

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

Vlürch wrote:
17 Jan 2020 05:09
Huh, this is the first time I'm hearing about Proto-Turkic not having had a distinction between /t k/ and /d g/. I mean, I've heard about it having had a distinction of aspiration or fortis/lenis or whatever rather than voicing, but not having a distinction at all? [:O]
PT did have /g/ and /d/... only in word-medial and word-final positions though. Altaicists propose that Proto-Altaic *d- (initial) became /d/>/ð/>/y/ in Turkic, explaining its loss. The initial is preserved in Mongolian, and there are cognates to prove it (except that I am typing from a phone currently and wouldn't bother to copy-paste lots of stuff).
It having /æ/ and /ɒː/ rather than just /ɑ/ and /ɑː/ or whatever is something I just can't help but love and want to use in some conlangs... but there's the "problem" that not even most of the natlangs that have had extensive contact with Persian have adopted that vowel weirdness (even with Uzbek it's kind of debatable
It is a common tendency for languages with /a/ and /a:/ to develop a qualitative distinction so as to differentiate the two phonemes more clearly... (Iranian) Persian fronted /a/, while Hungarian and Common Slavic backened it, the latter to the point that it becomes /o/.

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Vlürch »

dva_arla wrote:
17 Jan 2020 06:38
PT did have /g/ and /d/... only in word-medial and word-final positions though. Altaicists propose that Proto-Altaic *d- (initial) became /d/>/ð/>/y/ in Turkic, explaining its loss. The initial is preserved in Mongolian, and there are cognates to prove it
But what's the initial consonant in, say, *diāĺ (from which the aforementioned taş, etc. came from), *dāg, etc. if not /d/, and what's the initial consonant in *gīr if not /g/? I mean, if the argument is that /*t *k/ were /tʰ kʰ/ or whatever while /*d *g/ were /t k/ or whatever in an initial position and /d g/ elsewhere, that wouldn't make much (if any) difference since there was some kind of contrast between /*t *k/ and /*d *g/ even in inital positions. Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you're saying, though... I can be an idiot sometimes.
dva_arla wrote:
17 Jan 2020 06:38
It is a common tendency for languages with /a/ and /a:/ to develop a qualitative distinction so as to differentiate the two phonemes more clearly... (Iranian) Persian fronted /a/, while Hungarian and Common Slavic backened it, the latter to the point that it becomes /o/.
Sure, but there are also a lot of languages that don't have any quality difference in their short and long vowels (or the difference is negligible and inconsistent). The short and long vowels in Finnish and Japanese don't have any quality differences, for example, and AFAIK neither do those in any of the Turkic languages that have long vowels except maybe Tuvan.

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Vlürch wrote:but there's the "problem" that not even most of the natlangs that have had extensive contact with Persian have adopted that vowel weirdness (even with Uzbek it's kind of debatable), so for a conlang to have it the requirement would be INTENSE contact with Persian.
Uzbek got its weird vowel system from Tajik or Eastern Persian, thus: a o i u e o' (lost length of i and u, while preserving long e and o), essentially the same.
Vlürch wrote: For example, ю кән ўрайт Иңлиш ин Кырилик... ор из ит Сырилик? Сирилик? Кирилик? Ю дисайд! (you can write English in Cyrillic... or is it Syrillic? Sirillic? Kirillic? You decide!)
In fact, no language written in Cyrillic has such orthographic depth as English or French; the deepest might be Chechen and Ingush, but that could be due to the "deficiency" of their orthographies designed by Soviet experts (i.e. they might've failed to notice some oppositions in the vowel system like /e/-/ie/). Khalkha Mongolian also has a deep orthography, because of the sound changes within less a century (?)
dva_arla wrote:Also suggesting an Oghuz innovation is the well-known fact that Oghuz d- and g- occurred mostly only after front vowels.
*d often occurs before back vowels, but *g only before front vowels (contrasting with *k) in Starostin's system. Currently I randomly voicing PT *d when making conlang words.
dva_arla wrote:PT did have /g/ and /d/... only in word-medial and word-final positions though. Altaicists propose that Proto-Altaic *d- (initial) became /d/>/ð/>/y/ in Turkic, explaining its loss. The initial is preserved in Mongolian, and there are cognates to prove it (except that I am typing from a phone currently and wouldn't bother to copy-paste lots of stuff).
I guess that initial *b *d *g were pronounced as unaspirated (perhaps voiced) stops, and *t *k *č were aspirated; medial and final *b *d *g were actually fricatives/approximants, depending on dialect.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Nortaneous
greek
greek
Posts: 616
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 13:28

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Nortaneous »

Zythros Jubi wrote:
17 Jan 2020 09:42
In fact, no language written in Cyrillic has such orthographic depth as English or French; the deepest might be Chechen and Ingush, but that could be due to the "deficiency" of their orthographies designed by Soviet experts (i.e. they might've failed to notice some oppositions in the vowel system like /e/-/ie/). Khalkha Mongolian also has a deep orthography, because of the sound changes within less a century (?)
Chechen just doesn't write some vowel distinctions. Russian orthography is a little deep (bog, solnce, -ego, buhgalter, writing e for è in loans, unmarked stress), but Khalkha Mongolian is noticeably deeper than ~every other Cyrillic-based orthography, due to the recent loss of unstressed vowels.

Vowel reduction typically happens a while before orthographic analysis catches up. Deseret was supposed to be a phonemic alphabet for English, but in practice it must have been deep, since it was assumed that unstressed schwa didn't exist -- every vowel was written as stressed, and the location of the stress wasn't written. So the word 'abridgement' was written 𐐰𐐺𐑉𐐮𐐾𐑋𐐯𐑌𐐻 /æbrɪdʒmɛnt/. (Deseret also assumed English had a diphthong /ɪu̯/, but who knows, maybe that dialect did.) There was a proposal to introduce a letter for schwa, but it wasn't accepted, although it's basically necessary to adopt now - so today one would write ı𐐺𐑉𐐮𐐾𐑋ı𐑌𐐻. (This letter isn't in Unicode but dotless i is close enough in form.)

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Tuva also has initial d.

As for the collablang thing, I've figured out most of phonology and sound changes; choice of vocabulary is difficult for me, so it's welcome for y'all to give some advice.

I wonder which points in sound change @dva_arla thinks unsuitable/unrealistic.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1930
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Salmoneus »

dva_arla wrote:
17 Jan 2020 06:38
It is a common tendency for languages with /a/ and /a:/ to develop a qualitative distinction so as to differentiate the two phonemes more clearly... (Iranian) Persian fronted /a/, while Hungarian and Common Slavic backened it, the latter to the point that it becomes /o/.
Yes, I was going to say this - it's ultra-common, so no close connexion to Persian would be required for it to happen in a conlang.

Another example, with hardly any Persian influence, is Irish. Sort of. It varies with dialect and with the surrounding consonants, but in general long A is usually (or always) further back and sometimes (or always) rounded, while short A is further forward and not rounded. Apparently in Connemara short A is lengthened, so that the 'length' distinction for A is entirely one of fronting/backing and there's no short open vowel.


Vlurch is correct, however, in the general point that Farsi sounds gorgeous.

dva_arla
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by dva_arla »

Vlürch wrote:
17 Jan 2020 05:09
One option would be to have an alternative Cyrillic orthography for one that doesn't normally use it, or you could just transcribe natlangs that don't normally use Cyrillic in Cyrillic, which will often also be a fun exercise in that it allows you to think about different possible conventions. For example, ю кән ўрайт Иңлиш ин Кырилик... ор из ит Сырилик? Сирилик? Кирилик? Ю дисайд! (you can write English in Cyrillic... or is it Syrillic? Sirillic? Kirillic? You decide!) Like, there I used <ә> and <ң> for /æ/ and /ŋ/ like Kazakh, etc. and also retained the generally silent <w> in "write" (both to keep it from becoming homographic with "right" and because it's not silent for me tbh) and spelled "is" with <з> to reflect that the <s> is voiced. Obviously your Cyrillisation of English would be different from mine in some way,
Perhaps I should create "Cyrillic Gaelic" for practice? [;)]
Salmoneus wrote:
17 Jan 2020 21:35
Vlurch is correct, however, in the general point that Farsi sounds gorgeous.
Afghan Persian (a.k.a. "Dari) sounds "softer" and better methinks...
Zythros Jubi wrote:
17 Jan 2020 17:19

I wonder which points in sound change @dva_arla thinks unsuitable/unrealistic.
This one?
Some preliminary sound changes, inspired by Hungarian sound changes and Bulgar/Chuvash ones:
t d s n > ts dz ʃ ɲ/ _{i,j}
k ɡ > q ɢ > h ɦ / _{+back} # g never seems to occur word-initially before a back vowel
p t c k tʃ > b d ɟ ɡ~ɢ dʒ > β ð ʝ ɣ~ɦ ʒ > v z j ɦ~h ʒ / V_V # ɦ is the intervocalic allophone of h
b d ɟ ɡ > β ɾ ʝ ɣ~ʁ > v r j v~j~0 / V_
some b > p > f /#_

i y u ɯ > ɪ ʏ ʊ ɤ
iː yː uː ɯː > i y u ɯ
ɤ > ɪ/_{t,d,s,z,n}; ɯ / _{C{j,+high},+palatal,+alveopalatal}; a / _Ca(ː); ʊ otherwise
a e o ø > ɑ ɛ ɔ œ
aː eː oː øː > a(partially) e o ø
ɪj(ɪ) ʊ{v,ɣ})(ʊ) ʏ{v,j}(ʏ) > iː uː yː
ɪv > yː
ɪ ʏ ʊ ɤ > e ø o ə
mp nt ŋk ntʃ > mb nd ŋɡ ɲɟ > b d ɡ ɟ
ɣ > v / _{+round}; j / _{-round, +front}
Vɣ > Vː
Cː > C
{m,ŋ} > n /_t
k > 0 / {r,l}_

ɯ > i
ɔ œ ø > va vɛ ve/ #_
{e,ɛ}v {ɑ,o}v > øː oː
{u}v {y}v > uː yː
{ɑ,ɔ} > ɒ (short only)
j > ɟ / #_
kj > c / #_
bj > z
œ > ɛ
Ø > ɡ / ŋ_
nl > ɲː

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

These sound changes are a bit outdated. As for vowel shifts, I mainly draw inspiration from Dybo's reconstruction of sound changes in late Bulgaric borrowing in Hungarian (and Slavic languages).
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

You can write whatever sound change you desire here, @dva_arla.
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Zythros Jubi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 404
Joined: 24 Nov 2014 17:31

Re: Eskêl (Carpathian Bulgar) Scratchpad

Post by Zythros Jubi »

Main vowel changes from Proto-Turkic to Old Danube Bulgar (or rather Daco-Bulgaric, DB):
1. Lowering of high short vowels: PT *i *u *ü *ï> *e *o *ø *ə (while PT *e *o *ö *a > DB *ɛ *ɔ *œ *ɑ)
2. Diphthongization of mid long rounded vowels: PT *ō *ȫ > *o(w)aː *ø(w)ɛː
3. Diphthongization of initial mid rounded vowels: PT *o *ö *ō *ȫ > *wɑ *wɛ *waː *wɛː
4. *ɔ *œ merged with *ɑ *ɛ in non-initial syllables
5. PT *ia *iā > *e *i after *b; PT *i *ī *ia *iā trigger palatalization after *t *d *s *k [q>χ], turning them into *ts *dz *ʃ *j, *sï>*ʃə
5. PT *ạ *ẹ *ạ̄ *ẹ̄ > *ɨ *e *ɨː *eː (later *ɨː>*ɨ)
6. Shortening of high long vowels: PT *ī *ū *ǖ *ï̄ > *i *u *y *ɨ
7. *ɨ *ə > *i *e
8. Short vowel are lengthened preceding [consonant(s) + PT hight short vowel ]
Lostlang plans: Oghur Turkic, Gallaecian Celtic, Palaeo-Balkanic

Post Reply