Page 5 of 5

Re: Moderatores Populusque XKCDi [Latin]

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:39 pm UTC
by Lazar
Speaking of alternate writing systems, sometimes I write Latin as if it were a new language we just found.

c = k
ch = kh
gu = gw
j = y
qu = kw
v = w
x = ks
y = ü
ȳ = ǖ

Arma wirumkwe kanō, Trōyae kwī prīmus ab ōrīs
Ītaliam fātō profugus, Lāwīniakwe wēnit
lītora; multum ille et terrīs yaktātus et altō
wī superum, saewae memorem Yūnōnis ob īram.

Re: Moderatores Populusque XKCDi [Latin]

Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:10 pm UTC
by Lazar
Or even more alternatively, we could write it in the Old Italic script:

a: 𐌀
b = 𐌁
c = 𐌂
d = 𐌃
e = 𐌄
f = 𐌅
g = 𐌂
h = 𐌇
i = 𐌉
k = 𐌊
l = 𐌋
m = 𐌌
n = 𐌍
o = 𐌏
p = 𐌐
q = 𐌒
r = 𐌓
s = 𐌔
t = 𐌕
u = 𐌖
x = 𐌗
y = 𐌖
z = 𐌆

𐌀𐌓𐌌𐌀 𐌖𐌉𐌓𐌖𐌌𐌒𐌖𐌄 𐌂𐌀𐌍𐌏, 𐌕𐌓𐌏𐌉𐌀𐌄 𐌒𐌖𐌉 𐌐𐌓𐌉𐌌𐌖𐌔 𐌀𐌁 𐌏𐌓𐌉𐌔
𐌉𐌕𐌀𐌋𐌉𐌀𐌌 𐌅𐌀𐌕𐌏 𐌐𐌓𐌏𐌅𐌖𐌂𐌖𐌔, 𐌋𐌀𐌖𐌉𐌍𐌉𐌀𐌒𐌖𐌄 𐌖𐌄𐌍𐌉𐌕
𐌋𐌉𐌕𐌏𐌓𐌀; 𐌌𐌖𐌋𐌕𐌖𐌌 𐌉𐌋𐌋𐌄 𐌄𐌕 𐌕𐌄𐌓𐌓𐌉𐌔 𐌉𐌀𐌂𐌕𐌀𐌕𐌖𐌔 𐌄𐌕 𐌀𐌋𐌕𐌏
𐌖𐌉 𐌔𐌖𐌐𐌄𐌓𐌖𐌌, 𐌔𐌀𐌄𐌖𐌀𐌄 𐌌𐌄𐌌𐌏𐌓𐌄𐌌 𐌉𐌖𐌍𐌏𐌍𐌉𐌔 𐌏𐌁 𐌉𐌓𐌀𐌌.

Though maybe that's a little incongruous. Here's my attempt to archaize the text:

𐌋𐌄𐌉𐌕𐌏𐌔𐌀·𐌌𐌏𐌋𐌕𐌏𐌌·𐌏𐌋𐌋𐌄·𐌄𐌕𐌕𐌄𐌓𐌔𐌄𐌉𐌔 ·𐌉𐌀𐌂𐌕𐌀𐌕𐌏𐌔·𐌄𐌕𐌀𐌋𐌕𐌏𐌃

I… really don't know why I bothered to do that.

Re: Moderatores Populusque XKCDi [Latin]

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:20 pm UTC
by Lazar
Seriously, though, I have been giving some thought to how best to write Latin. Part of me likes the rigorous simplicity of Oxford's current approach – mandatory use of macrons over long vowels (like in Lavian, or romaji), and uniform use of u and i along with upper-case V and I. But there's another part of me that does prefer to mark consonantal v and j. Take a name like Gaius, which is generally thought to have been trisyllabic: in Oxford's style we'd have to use Gāïus (Gāïī, Gāïō, etc.) to get this across unambiguously, whereas if we're using j, Gāius will suffice. The point is often made that the Romans didn't distinguish v, j from u, i, but by that logic we'd have to abandon two-case writing as well as modern spacing and punctuation. (There's also a compromise style frequently used these days, with v but not j, but I find that less appealing – and harder to justify – than either of the alternatives.)

So my preference right now is to use mandatory macrons, and to use both v and j. This approach might seem like a mix of new and old practice, but it's consistent in showing as much phonological information as possible.

Re: Moderatores Populusque XKCDi [Latin]

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 6:32 am UTC
by Lazar
A couple random observations:

1. Even though the Romance languages uniformly abandoned Latin equus, most of them retained equa (for reasons which are not totally clear, but are discussed here). Thus we have:

Catalan: egua
Galician: egua
Occitan: èga
Portuguese: égua
Romanian: iapă
Sardinian: ebba
Spanish: yegua

Interestingly, the Romanian and Sardinian forms show the (typologically rather common) change of a labialized velar or velar-labiovelar sequence into a labial, the same process which at a much earlier time transformed PIE *éḱwos into Greek híppos. Something similar also took place in Latin, changing OL duellom, duonos, duis into CL bellum, bonus, bis.

2. A notable quality of the PIE words *mātḗr "mother" and *pǝtḗr "father" is that they don't rhyme: you can see this in English, and in Latin māter, pater. But as best I can tell, Portuguese, with mãe, pai, is the only Romance language which has preserved these roots in non-rhyming form. All the others seem to have either merged their vowels to make them rhyme or replaced them with different roots:

Catalan: mare, pare
French: mère, père
Friulian: mari, pari
Galician: nai, pai
Italian: madre, padre
Occitan: maire, paire
Spanish: madre, padre

Romanian: mamă, tată
Romansh: mamma, bab
Sardinian: màmma, bàbbu

I could be wrong, though – I haven't checked every variety.

Re: Moderatores Populusque XKCDi [Latin]

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:18 am UTC
by Mark_Cangila
Estne hoc mortuus?