(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Pabappa
greek
greek
Posts: 483
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Pabappa »

Salmoneus wrote: 27 Apr 2021 02:17
Pabappa wrote: 26 Apr 2021 23:25 are we sure that the words with /ks/ arent just all reborrowings? i would expect them to both palatalize and then degeminate, just as how as you say italian doesnt have any words with /ktʃ/.
Why would you 'expect' that?

Give examples of cases where Latin /kk/ becomes /s/. If the /ks/ examples are only reborrowings, it should be easy to find a horde of 'real' reflexes with /s/, or even doublets!

And in any case, as I say, Italian doesn't degeminate, it just assimilates: /kk/ > /ktS/ > /ttS/.
The thing is that it's hard to piece apart what's native and what's inherited. So far as I know, most Latin /kk/ was formed from the prefix ac- followed by a word stem beginning with c, and it was very rare within morphemes. Im sure there are some, but I couldnt find a single example offhand of a monomorphemic Latin word containing internal cc followed by a front vowel.

Spanish has words beginning with ac- and words beginning with acc- . I suspect the ones with acc- are reborrowings from Latin because the stems of those words are all what I'd expect from a reborrowing, but Spanish is fairly conservative and it could also be that none of those words would have changed in either case. The sample size for ac- followed by a front vowel is even smaller. So in essence, the sample size is too small in general for me to be sure either way, but that the singleton form ac- even exists leads me to believe that the reflex of /kk/ followed by a front vowel is simply /s/ and never /ks/.

[edit: searching on oc- vs occ- leads to the same situation .... no way to tell which, if any, of the words are loaned and which are inherited.]

Still, I phrased my post as a question because IM not sure. There might be words with /kke/ and /kki/ in Latin after all, and if at least some of those words have been inherited into Spanish and have evidence one way or the other of being native or reborrowed, that would help clear it up. Or maybe other languages can help. At least with French it's a lot clearer when a word is reborrowed because it stands out more from the rest.
I'll take the theses, and you can have the thoses.
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2817
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 »

Salmoneus wrote: 27 Apr 2021 02:17Give examples of cases where Latin /kk/ becomes /s/. If the /ks/ examples are only reborrowings, it should be easy to find a horde of 'real' reflexes with /s/, or even doublets!
I don't know about a horde (like Pabappa said, the phoneme distribution in Latin makes instances rare), but there are examples of inherited French words where Latin /kk/ became /s/ (or /t͡s/). The least ambiguous example I can find is Old French sacel, from Latin saccellum. It would have had /t͡s/ (before being analogized to sachel with /t͡ʃ/). By and large, French words containing /ks/ from Latin /kk/ are learned or semilearned borrowings. That can be seen from the absence of other sound changes.
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 2788
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Khemehekis »

How 'bout flaccidus, the etymon of flaccid?
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 72,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2315
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Dormouse559 wrote: 27 Apr 2021 03:58
Salmoneus wrote: 27 Apr 2021 02:17Give examples of cases where Latin /kk/ becomes /s/. If the /ks/ examples are only reborrowings, it should be easy to find a horde of 'real' reflexes with /s/, or even doublets!
I don't know about a horde (like Pabappa said, the phoneme distribution in Latin makes instances rare), but there are examples of inherited French words where Latin /kk/ became /s/ (or /t͡s/). The least ambiguous example I can find is Old French sacel, from Latin saccellum. It would have had /t͡s/ (before being analogized to sachel with /t͡ʃ/).
Well, if there's evidence that the regular change was /kk/ > /s/, then of course that was the case. But the point remains that there's no reason why Pabappa should just assume that this would be the case [in French, obviously it was the case in Iberia] and ignore evidence to the contrary!

Having said that, given how few inherited words there are with /kk/ NOT from ac-, I'd have thought that irregular development of a rare cluster was also an option.
By and large, French words containing /ks/ from Latin /kk/ are learned or semilearned borrowings. That can be seen from the absence of other sound changes.
Could you be more specific? What would the 'correct' inherited form of, say, 'accident' be, then?
It seems curious to me that coincidentally an entire class of words in Latin (those beginning acc-) would all be independently lost and reborrowed!
User avatar
Znex
roman
roman
Posts: 931
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 14:05
Location: Australia

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Znex »

For what it's worth, I agree with Pabappa. It's unusual for Latin geminates in Romance languages to be treated as anything other than lengthened consonants, rather than consonant clusters. While on the surface they are both treated differently to singletons, geminates generally change as a whole and not as separate consonants.

Compare for instance:
La bucca > Fr bouche, Es boca, It bocca
La occidere > OFr ocire, OOc aucire, It uccidere
La factum > Fr fait, Es hecho, It fatto
La cattus > Fr chat, Es gato, It gatto
La gratia > Fr grâce, Es gracia, It grazia
La gratus > Fr gré, Es grado, It grato

Also words that clearly possess distinct affixes, or more rare words, are hardly decisive counterexamples by themselves. We know that words affected by analogy will behave differently to what is expected by regular sound changes.
:eng: : [tick] | :grc: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: :wls: : [:S] | :deu: :ell: :rus: : [:x]
Conlangs: Hawntow, misc.
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2817
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 »

Salmoneus wrote: 27 Apr 2021 12:27 Well, if there's evidence that the regular change was /kk/ > /s/, then of course that was the case. But the point remains that there's no reason why Pabappa should just assume that this would be the case [in French, obviously it was the case in Iberia] and ignore evidence to the contrary!

Having said that, given how few inherited words there are with /kk/ NOT from ac-, I'd have thought that irregular development of a rare cluster was also an option.
There isn't evidence to the contrary. As I said, and will be more specific on in a moment, many words with /ks/ < /kk/ bear other markers of borrowings.

Could you be more specific? What would the 'correct' inherited form of, say, 'accident' be, then?
In Modern French, assuming completely regular sound changes, something like aceant /asɑ̃/ (cf. Old French asseant ~/asəˈãnt/ from *assedentem). Intervocalic /d/ does not last in inherited French words, and neither does the unstressed monophthong that precedes it. Assuming a degree of analogy, I'd expect achéant /aʃeɑ̃/ or achoyant /aʃwajɑ̃/, based on choir and its derivatives.

It seems curious to me that coincidentally an entire class of words in Latin (those beginning acc-) would all be independently lost and reborrowed!
A lot of Latin words were lost and reborrowed, or else inherited and re-Latinized. That's the Romance languages' thing. EDIT: In any case, I don't think anyone says that all words beginning with acc- were lost; for example, French has acheter from *accaptare. It's just that the words with acc- before a front vowel happened to not survive.
User avatar
Sequor
sinic
sinic
Posts: 325
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Sequor »

Dormouse559 wrote: 27 Apr 2021 18:57
Salmoneus wrote: 27 Apr 2021 12:27 Well, if there's evidence that the regular change was /kk/ > /s/, then of course that was the case. But the point remains that there's no reason why Pabappa should just assume that this would be the case [in French, obviously it was the case in Iberia] and ignore evidence to the contrary!

Having said that, given how few inherited words there are with /kk/ NOT from ac-, I'd have thought that irregular development of a rare cluster was also an option.
There isn't evidence to the contrary. As I said, and will be more specific on in a moment, many words with /ks/ < /kk/ bear other markers of borrowings.
Some words that bear other phonetic markers of being borrowings:
- accident: no lowering of unstressed -i- (short in Latin accĭdentem), retention of -d-
- accéder: retention of -d-, no historical lengthening to -ei- in forms with a stressed stem (accēdō > OFr *assei > mod. *j'assois, cf. assedeō > j'assieds)
- accepter: retention of the -pt- cluster
- acception: retention of the [ps] cluster, besides being a very high-register word
- accélérer: no reduction of the unstressed open -é-'s

Some words that don't:
- accent, said to be a borrowing by the Trésor de la langue française
- accès [aksɛ], said to be a borrowing by TLF too

Another argument against [kk] > OFr [kts] > mod. [ks]: French otherwise turns coda [k] into [j], yet we do not see *aicent, *aicès, *saicel (< saccellum). See [kt] > [jt] in octō > huit, tractāre > traiter, factum > fait; [ks] > [js] in laxāre > laisser, exīre > OFr eissir, texere > *[ˈtjɛjstɾə] > (with regular [jɛj] > [ i]) OFr tistre, coxa > cuisse.
Dormouse559 wrote: 27 Apr 2021 03:58I don't know about a horde (like Pabappa said, the phoneme distribution in Latin makes instances rare), but there are examples of inherited French words where Latin /kk/ became /s/ (or /t͡s/). The least ambiguous example I can find is Old French sacel, from Latin saccellum. It would have had /t͡s/ (before being analogized to sachel with /t͡ʃ/). By and large, French words containing /ks/ from Latin /kk/ are learned or semilearned borrowings. That can be seen from the absence of other sound changes.
There's also medieval Latin a(c)ciārium, derived from Classical aciēs, ending up as Old French acer ~ acier, modern acier, which could possibly count. At least it shows a phonetically evolved suffix rather than -aire. Do you think a single -c- aciārium would've produced as(i)er, with /z/, though? At any rate this doesn't have either [ s] or [ks]. The word has a rare enough meaning to count as semi-learned vocabulary, unfortunately.
In any case, I don't think anyone says that all words beginning with acc- were lost; for example, French has acheter from *accaptare. It's just that the words with acc- before a front vowel happened to not survive.
There's also *ad-cap-āre > OFr achevér, je achiéve, cognate with Spanish acabar, yo acabo.

Incidentally, and somewhat unrelatedly, one thing I notice is that French interestingly has some words without the a- prefix where Spanish has a-:
- camper - acampar
- caresser - acariciar

This is true even of more technical kind of vocabulary:
- caraméliser qqch - acaramelar algo
- cantonner des soldats - acantonar soldados
- canneler qqch - acanalar algo
- couder qqch - acodillar algo

And in general, when making up novel verbs as a joke or jargon, I think Spanish speakers have a much greater tendency to use a-...-ar (when they don't use -izar or en-...-ecer instead) where French speakers would just use -er ... Bare -ar is not actually productive in Spanish, -ear specifically is!
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2817
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 »

Sequor wrote: 27 Apr 2021 22:48 There's also medieval Latin a(c)ciārium, derived from Classical aciēs, ending up as Old French acer ~ acier, modern acier, which could possibly count. At least it shows a phonetically evolved suffix rather than -aire. Do you think a single -c- aciārium would've produced as(i)er, with /z/, though? At any rate this doesn't have either [ s] or [ks]. The word has a rare enough meaning to count as semi-learned vocabulary, unfortunately.
I guess it depends on what we want to count [:P] The usual explanation of Romance sound changes is that Vulgar Latin short /k/ geminates before /j/, so why not? Without the doubling, aciarium gives French *aisier /ɛzje/.

Incidentally, and somewhat unrelatedly, one thing I notice is that French interestingly has some words without the a- prefix where Spanish has a-:
Huh, I feel like I've noticed this subconsciously before, but I don't know enough Spanish to have realized it was a pattern.

And in general, when making up novel verbs as a joke or jargon, I think Spanish speakers have a much greater tendency to use a-...-ar (when they don't use -izar or en-...-ecer instead) where French speakers would just use -er ... Bare -ar is not actually productive in Spanish, -ear specifically is!
This I did know! It's so convenient being able to tack -er onto things.
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: 28 Jul 2015 18:43

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by ixals »

Salmoneus wrote: 27 Apr 2021 12:27Well, if there's evidence that the regular change was /kk/ > /s/, then of course that was the case. But the point remains that there's no reason why Pabappa should just assume that this would be the case [in French, obviously it was the case in Iberia] and ignore evidence to the contrary!
As dormouse said, there isn't evidence to the contrary. And I don't really see what your problem with Pabappa's assumption is. As you said, Romance languages' sound changes are very well documented and by having a look through how Romance languages handle /kC/ clusters as well as geminates, it's not far-fetched at all to come to Pabappa's conclusion and should even be the expected logical conclusion.

But as others have mentioned, there is accaptāre which has /k:/ > /tS/ which, despite being /tS/ and not /ts/, should also prove how these clusters were handled in French. And apparently, there is also achaison from occāsiō.

On that note, do any of the Romance languages, except Romanian and its sisters, possess any inherited consonant clusters from Latin with a stop as the first consonant? Like definitely inherited, not words like soupçon which got the cluster due to later sound changes. If there aren't any to be found, it also should be quite the proof for <cc> /ks/ not being native either.
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :chn:, :tur:, :fra:

Zhér·dûn a tonal Germanic conlang

old stuff: Цiски | Noattȯč | Tungōnis Vīdīnōs
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2315
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

ixals wrote: 28 Apr 2021 17:08 As dormouse said, there isn't evidence to the contrary.
But quite clearly there is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Of course, by now, better evidence has been provided, showing (as I should have realised, of course) that all the prima facie evidence for the change is actually the result of later borrowings. But that doesn't just rewrite history!
And I don't really see what your problem with Pabappa's assumption is.
My problem was that, given evidence for a perfectly reasonable and plausible soundchange, he just waved it away on the basis of gut instinct. The fact that in this case he happened to come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason is by the by. This is entirely different from Sequor and Dormouse refuting my evidence with better evidence.

[the best bit of evidence so far is Sequor's point about palatalisation of preconsonantal /k/, which virtually proves that /ks/ must be due to later reborrowing. Arguments along the lines of "but other languages have different soundchanges!" and "but a different soundchange operates in a few rare words!", and even "but these words must, for other reasons, be borrowings" are evidence too, but much weaker, since they only suggest rather than proving (there being no plausible reason why /k/ > /j/ would be absent iff the /k/ was followed by /s/ that originated in an earlier /k/).]
But as others have mentioned, there is accaptāre which has /k:/ > /tS/ which, despite being /tS/ and not /ts/, should also prove how these clusters were handled in French. And apparently, there is also achaison from occāsiō.
But these could be explained by /kS/ > /tS/, which is a priori a much more likely change than /ks/ > /ts/ (Cs clusters often have special status, so by itself that wouldn't be very conclusive.
On that note, do any of the Romance languages, except Romanian and its sisters, possess any inherited consonant clusters from Latin with a stop as the first consonant? Like definitely inherited, not words like soupçon which got the cluster due to later sound changes. If there aren't any to be found, it also should be quite the proof for <cc> /ks/ not being native either.
Yes, S+l and S+r clusters exist - and it wouldn't be strange for S+s to pattern more like S+r than like S+S.
Evni Öpiu-sä
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 21
Joined: 07 Apr 2018 10:45

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Evni Öpiu-sä »

Has anyone made a new orthography for English, where, if you see a written word, its spelling always tells exactly how it's pronounced, and if you hear a word, its sounds always tell exactly how it's spelled? In other words, you don't have to memorize both spelling and pronunciation.

If does have, where can we find it?
:fin: - C2
:eng: - ranges from A2 to B2
:swe: - ranges from A1 to A2
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2784
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 »

Evni Öpiu-sä wrote: 03 May 2021 17:47 Has anyone made a new orthography for English, where, if you see a written word, its spelling always tells exactly how it's pronounced, and if you hear a word, its sounds always tell exactly how it's spelled? In other words, you don't have to memorize both spelling and pronunciation.

If does have, where can we find it?
I think there's quite a few of them out there. Benjamin Franklin had one all the way back in the 1700s that largely aimed for a one-to-one correspondence between sound and symbol, but I think it missed a letter to represent the schwa, e.g. the first vowel in "photograph" and "photography" were both written using the same letter.

I'm fairly sure we have a thread somewhere on the Board, or maybe on the ZBB, which is for English spelling reforms, and it's been discussed several times over the years. Pretty much, though, searching for "English spelling reform" is always a good start.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2315
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Evni Öpiu-sä wrote: 03 May 2021 17:47 Has anyone made a new orthography for English, where, if you see a written word, its spelling always tells exactly how it's pronounced, and if you hear a word, its sounds always tell exactly how it's spelled? In other words, you don't have to memorize both spelling and pronunciation.

If does have, where can we find it?
There are literally countless attempts at such orthographies, including a bunch on this board, as Sangi says.

Unfortunately, though, such an orthography is impossible.

The big problem is that different dialects pronounce things differently - in particular, someone from, say, California, is likely to have a LOT (no pun intended) fewer phonemic vowels than someone from, say, Surrey. It IS possible to create a unified orthography in which the majority of words have pronounciations predictable from the spelling in each dialect - not all words, because there's a small number of outright irregular correspondances between dialects, particularly with words that have been independently borrowed after the dialects diverged (eg, Americans tend to use /A/ in loanwords, like 'pasta', where English use /{/), but most words. In fact, if you don't want to address all dialects, it's actually quite easy to make an orthography that has predictable pronunciations in just GA and RP (again, not counting iregular words). Although it requires a LOT of different vowel symbols!

It's NOT possible, however, to make an orthography where spelling is predictable from sound in multiple dialects.

For instance, as an SSBE speaker, I pronounce "bath" and "palm" with the same vowel. So for spelling to be pronouncable, I'd have to write them the same way: báth, pálm, for instance. But go a couple of hundred miles north of here, and "bath" instead has the same vowel as "trap". I can make a spelling-to-sound regular pandialectical orthography by spelling all three of 'bath', 'palm' and 'trap' with different vowels... but I can't make a regular sound-to-spelling pandialectical regular orthography, because there's no way for a speaker of SSBE to tell (other than by the current spelling and by knowledge of other dialects) which words would be in the 'palm' set and which in the 'bath' set. Similarly, I'd have no way of knowing which words should have 'r' written in them and which not, because for me, 'lore' and 'law' sound the same.

So if you want to make a regular sound-to-spelling orthography, it can't be for "English", but only for a specific dialects. [Ideally, Western American, since this probably has the fewest vowels...]


Anyway, there's two stylistic ways to go about a regular English orthography. One way is to start from scratch, which probably means using a lot of diacritic to distinguish vowels (having 15-30 vowel phonemes but only 5 vowel graphemes is kind of a problem). The other way is to start with existing orthography and remove irregularities - this means using tricks like "double consonants shorten preceding vowels". This is actually surprisingly easy, as English spelling is already much more regular than it's often thought.
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2817
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 »

sangi39 wrote: 03 May 2021 18:05
Evni Öpiu-sä wrote: 03 May 2021 17:47 Has anyone made a new orthography for English, where, if you see a written word, its spelling always tells exactly how it's pronounced, and if you hear a word, its sounds always tell exactly how it's spelled? In other words, you don't have to memorize both spelling and pronunciation.

If does have, where can we find it?
I think there's quite a few of them out there. Benjamin Franklin had one all the way back in the 1700s that largely aimed for a one-to-one correspondence between sound and symbol, but I think it missed a letter to represent the schwa, e.g. the first vowel in "photograph" and "photography" were both written using the same letter.

I'm fairly sure we have a thread somewhere on the Board, or maybe on the ZBB, which is for English spelling reforms, and it's been discussed several times over the years. Pretty much, though, searching for "English spelling reform" is always a good start.
English Orthography Reform

We also used to have a thread for actually writing with whatever alternate spelling system you liked, but it seems to have been pruned.
Nortaneous
greek
greek
Posts: 631
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 13:28

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Nortaneous »

Evni Öpiu-sä wrote: 03 May 2021 17:47 Has anyone made a new orthography for English, where, if you see a written word, its spelling always tells exactly how it's pronounced, and if you hear a word, its sounds always tell exactly how it's spelled? In other words, you don't have to memorize both spelling and pronunciation.
𐐷𐐯𐑅 𐑅𐐲𐑋 𐐹𐐨𐐹𐑊 𐐨𐑂𐑌 𐐻𐑉𐐴𐐼 𐐻𐐭 𐐼𐐭 𐑄𐐮𐑅 𐐰𐐻 𐑅𐐿𐐩𐑊 𐐶𐐲𐑌𐑅
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 2788
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Khemehekis »

Also, irregular spelling helps English speakers distinguish homophones. If an Anglophone reads "a good night", he'll know that the writer was not referring to "a good knight".
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 72,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
Pabappa
greek
greek
Posts: 483
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Pabappa »

To be fair, though, is that really all that important? In speech, we cant tell the difference between night and knight either and examples where someone is legitimately confused between the two are quite rare.

Likewise, in languages that have perfectly phonetic spelling, I cant imagine that there are too many people arguing that the spelling should be made more complicated in order to distinguish various homophonous word pairs.
I'll take the theses, and you can have the thoses.
Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 2788
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Khemehekis »

I got that argument from an essay on Petersonian English Spelling. Good to check out for anyone who is considering spelling English phonetically!

http://dedalvs.com/petersonian.html
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 72,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2900
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas »

Khemehekis wrote: 05 May 2021 02:36 I got that argument from an essay on Petersonian English Spelling. Good to check out for anyone who is considering spelling English phonetically!

http://dedalvs.com/petersonian.html
:roll:

Waste of time, spelling reform.

In stead of tilting at windmills, we should just reform English pronunciation. That would be far easier and solve all the listed problems at once!
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: 28 Jul 2015 18:43

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by ixals »

Do North Germanic languages not have cognates of make and do? Or am I just blind?
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :chn:, :tur:, :fra:

Zhér·dûn a tonal Germanic conlang

old stuff: Цiски | Noattȯč | Tungōnis Vīdīnōs
Post Reply