Shikku27316

Babilonige

Be ye whole,

I see that you added a transcription for Babilonige; I fixed it up as much as I could, but I didn't bother with stress as I do not know much about stress in Old English; I do, at least, remember reading something (probably in Baker's Introduction) that says that all loanwords (including ones from Latin) are subject to the native system of accentuation and so, as byspel, paradisus would be pronounced with stress on the first rather than the next-to-last syllable.

Perhaps you know something I didn't, or no?

Thanks,

Espreon (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I'm not the best with Old English pronunciation; I just did my best based on how I would say it. I didn't know about them having stress on the first syllable even when they were from Latin; I would safely assume that it would have stress on the first syllable, then. Shikku27316 (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome.

OK, I put the stress mark at the beginning.

And just so you know, most of us here transcribe the short vowels with 〈i y e æ ɑ o ø u〉 rather than, for example, the symbols used to transcribe the Modern English "lax" vowels since it appears that length rather than quality is the main distinguishing factor. It may be fine in narrower transcriptions, but even there I avoid using them.

Espreon (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern English dialects

May I know which dialect of British English you choose to use and what your native dialect is (I assume it to be some sort of American dialect)?

I find it a bit odd that you say that languages should be pure while also saying that you yourself prefer to use British spellings, which I suppose means you would write centre instead of center and favour instead of favor, as byspel. If anything, it says that you like Modern English to look more French, un-English, and more self-loathing. We certainly do not say sentruh, as byspel. Most of the simplified "-our" words look more like their Latin equivalents/etyma; Latin appeared to be relevant to the pre-Norman English and this simplification does not introduce insanity. There's also ax (though, sadly not used that much, in my experience), which conforms to the system better than axe, but alas ax is considered "American" I'm sure.

As for the subjunctive, which you appear to value, American English seems to be kinder to the subjunctive than British English, which appears to have a tendency of replacing certain uses of the present subjunctive with should phrases ("I insist that he should leave immediately" instead of "I insist that he leave immediately"). I've also heard worse, like one British newspaper replacing a subjunctive were in a Britney Spears quote with was, thus having "If I was President ..." rather than "If I were President..." in a caption of an image that features the correct quote...

Of course, British dialects appears to be better with holding onto vowels than American dialects, but I do not know if you actually speak a British dialect most of the time. But do note that dialect's being American doesn't necessarily entail the mutation of /æ/ into that dreadful diphthong people seem to like transcribing as [eə] in similar places where certain British dialects likes to replace it with [ɑ] or the loss of /ɒ/, though I will assume yours does.

I will admit that my native dialect is an American dialect that lacks /ɒ ɔː/ and sometimes turns /æ/ into that repulsive "[eə]" thing, but I value words more than I do sounds, in this situation. I simply take in native words, use them instead of certain outlandish words where it wouldn't sound too weird, and carry on. I will admit that I don't do it as often as I should, but it's a something that takes awhile to get in your head, down where the rot lives and has the greatest power over what you say and write. And speaking of those vowels, while the mutation of /æ/ and the loss of /ɒ/ bother me, I do my best to kick the "[eə]" thing out of my head (much to the dismay of certain linguists... sorry!). Though, I will admit that I don't bother with shoving /ɒ/ (I also don't bother replacing it with the [ɔ] thingy conservative American dialects seem to replace it with in some words) into my speech since it'd probably sound silly to the people around me and I don't bother with /ɔː/ and simply enjoy that having it replaced with [ɑ] makes certain words more like some of their ancient forms.

Perhaps I'm too practical, but sadly, we don't have an iland where we purists can dwell and rule, so I simply enjoy some aspects of my native dialect while keeping others down and draw old stuff in and use it as much as possible. Maybe you should too.

Maybe I've simply given up hope, which could explain why I spend more of my time on languages such as Old English and don't bother studying Modern English as much.

What say you?

Espreon (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider this here to be "Anglo-Norman", not "English", and so it makes sense that I use these forms, because they kind of further the creole-hood of this here language. I also don't want to use any Americanisms; America should speak these languages instead of English, and so I don't recognise American English that much. Which is also why I tend to use more British-isms, if that's a thing. I like the subjectives because verbs are on their way out, so I try to preserve it. Besides, "If I was president" sounds very uneducated to me. I don't speak any British dialects; what I meant was that I prefer British spellings and words and pronunciations (there is no such word pronounced "tomayto" that I know of), and some expressions, too, from all over England (I don't like expressions from other countries of the UK, because they should all speak Celtic languages, and not have all the English influence that they do). But, none in particular. I know next to nothing about other dialects; I sometimes say "I'm paining" as they do in India, but other than that, I don't use any others... I'm not particularly fond of the Australian dialect, either, and I have never even heard any African dialects of English. Canadian English is okay at first, but then it gets kind of annoying, so I don't use that much. But, I don't exactly hate them all, because, of course, all words have a right to live on someone's tongue, just not mine. As for purism, we could make England more aware of it. I promise to force teach my friends to use a pure English (a pretty drastic one, with inflections as well as words), and maybe it will go from there to awareness, and then see what happens. And then, I'll forcible relocate all of the new pure English speakers to England, take the fremdspeaking people in England to America as a prison area, where they will live under Native American rule, or become nomads of the desert, and we can restore harmony. ...Well, not exactly that. It was more of a joke. By the way, how does one study Old English? It's horrendously hard. Shikku27316 (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, do keep in mind that they say that not all Americanisms were made in America. Just as long as it isn't called autumn, I'm happy.

As for the tomayto "problem", keep in mind that there aren't "tackos" either... at least I hope not. The idea of what they might taste like makes me shudder. Heh heh.

I guess you would have me speak Lenape, but alas, I know next to nothing about it. I do speak a tiny bit of Classical Nahuatl, though. (Hey, they do say that Mexico's part of North America)

As for studying Old English, you just read as many good books as you can, truly learn the inflections, and look at real Old English sentences. Campbell's Old English Grammar, Lass's Old English: A Historical Linguistic Companion, Peter Baker's Introduction to Old English, and Bruce Mitchell's A Guide to Old English are all nice books, and Bosworth–Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary's a good dictionary with lots of examples. And if you're into runes, R.I. Page's An Introduction to English Runes is a good place to start; I recommend you read this rather than just relying on the Modern English Wikipedia's articles.

And, of course, surveying other Germanic languages from time to time can also provide some insight. It's helped me, at least.

Lastly, I do hope you know about the Anglish Moot.

Espreon (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's not "autumn". It's harvest. That should be common knowledge.

Do you live in or near Lenapehoking? That's why I want to learn it, because only about 100 words are available in Susquehannock, the language of my area, which was massacred to extinction. Whichever part of America you live in, find out what native language was or is spoken there before displacement (or currently, either one), and that's the one you'd be speaking, if this were to come true. But, if you do learn Old English or pure English, you'd be able to live in England then. So, you wouldn't have to worry.

I have Mary K. Savelli's "Elementary Old English", which is kind of light and doesn't allow much practice (composing written things based on a prompt she would give, if she would), and, being that it's elementary, it's next to impossible for me. She makes many errors: I've seen "Iċ sægð", both "hē wyrċð" and "hē wryċð", and many more... It makes no sense to me. I'd rather learn it in my way, but that never works, either.

I do look at other Germanic languages, but no much. I think I waste too much time looking at Icelandic and Vandilic, which should help a little, but it's just too hard.

I work with the Anglish Moot, but I think they aren't working good enough. Japan is translated as "Dawnland" (or something), when it shouldn't be translated at all, and they don't use any inflections. I hope pure English doesn't end up like Cornish, with twelve hundred different formes and learning one could do no good talking to other people. I'm going to spread awareness for my forme. Shikku27316 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And I suppose you speak of lent too. How wonderful.

I will say that I am from that area. Yes, indeed. The problem is that I believe most of them live in Oklahoma these days. Though, I do have an e-book on the language, which I need to get to someday.

Try An old English grammar and exercise book with inflections, syntax, selections for readings, and glossary. It's very old, but I think it's very good. And it's too bad the book you do have has such dreadful errors... But do try to get your hands on one or more of the books I recommended; each and every one has wonderful things in it.

I was thinking of West Germanic languages, such as Dutch (which has great grammar terminology, unlike Standard German) and Nethersaxon.

Well, if they still do that somewhere (it seems they just call it Japan now... here, at least), their approach looks a bit like the Navaho's approach; I believe they call Germany something that essentially means "Spikedhelmetwearerland". It's not uncommon in Native American languages to more or less cast everything in native terms, I think I've read. I have no problem with it

As for the lack of inflections in the Anglish of the Anglish Moot, they just seek to deal with words; grammar and so on are other things that take more effort to deal with. You might as well just revive Middle English and let the good new words flow in and sweep out the filth. As for having lots of forms and synonyms, it doesn't bother me that much. The people at the Occitan Wikipedia, as byspel, seem fine with having different articles be in the various different dialects, across which various words can be very different (as byspel, the word for 'night' can be nuèch, nuòch, net, nuit, nuèit, ...) as long as the classical norm of orthography is more or less followed.

Finally, what are your sources for Vandalic? I'm quite curious...

Espreon (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think some Lenape people still live up here. I'm not sure, though, because with all the displacement, they could have ended up anywhere.

That book looks simple (let's hope the Old English isn't out of date!), so I'll use it with the one I have, just to show appreciation for it, because it was a Christmas present. However, I'm not sure if I can trust much of anything now...I have a Romanian phrasebook lying around, and some of the phonetic transcriptions look different than how I thought they should be pronounced, based on what I've learned.

I'm not a big fan of using made-up terms for countries out of direct words, but if a country has a lot of names already, Why not? The USA really needs a new name, and my attempts (most notably "Monovacia", which I ended up giving up on) were never good enough. But, Native Americans have sufficient names for it, even if one or two means "trickster spiders" (I can certainly understand why they'd use that).

I could help them with very small inflections, barely even noticeable. But, I'm not sure that there's a place for that. I'm really not into suggesting things to projects much.

For Vandilic (Vandalic is more proper, but I use the former to look closer to the Vandal word for themselves; my computer won't accept either), I got the words from here: [1] and kind of put it through an evolutionary process based on Latin to Italian; the flat-out reconstructions are Old Vandalic, then applying some Late Latin sound changes is Middle Vandalic, then from Latin to Italian sound changes, that's Neo-Vandalic, or simply Vandalic, and it's more of a conlang, in that it has some loanwords and a sound change system with little historical basis, and I just wanted it to be functional for a revival. You see, I think if we go to North Africa with genetic tests, we can find if there are any Germanic people and they are surely Vandals. Simply restore their sense of ethnic pride, give them the language, set up a state for them on the Mediterranean, and there you go. ...Are my views to extreme?

Shikku27316 (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Simplicity need not be a bad thing. As for your problems with the Romanian phrasebook, I would suggest reading up on Romanian phonology and orthography.

You could start your own wiki on a place like Wikia; it shouldn't be too hard.

Thanks for linking me to that paper. Though, I do think instead of applying Latin-to-Italian sound changes onto what little we know about Vandalic, you should keep it as close to "real" (and "proper") Vandalic as possible. But, I still would look into those "Romanizations" a bit more... even if it's just out of morbid interest.

As for your views, I do think they are, in general, a bit extreme, but as for the revival of the Vandalic ethnicity (with how you would do it, I bet there are a lot of people who would outright loathe it, but don't listen to them...), if they buy into it... great! If not... awww... The start is finding enough of the right people who care (... having something prepared would help, I guess...).

Espreon (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I used to be obsessed with Romania, so I knew all about the phonetics, but I forgot some—I'll look into it again, then.

I've started Wikias before, but it's changed much since then. I think I'll start a Vandalic one, in Gothic script (or should it be in Roman script? Or both? I prefer Gothic). I think Romanisations would be good for Vandalic; it started being Romanised during its existence, so further ones are likely. However, I'll also need to look at the evolutions of other Germanic languages.

I may go over to North Africa with a genetic testing team like Igenea to find Vandals or Germanic people, like I said, and just hope for the best that they are willing. But, yes, I'm very extreme. I should calm down; the world inside my head is already perfect, why make this world mimic it that much? Shikku27316 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How has starting Wikias changed? Regardless, do try creating a Vandalic one.

As for the script, my gut says either Gothic or runes. Maybe I could get someone to set up some sort of mechanism that will let you convert it into runes/Gothic and Latin on the fly, if you want. Let me know when it's up.

Well, you can't fully put yourself in that world, sadly. Heh heh.

Espreon (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I made it (Frudabuka means "Encyclopedia"): [[2]] and, forgive the username, I made the account long ago. It's going to be in Latin writing, because it won't allow capital Gothic letters. But, I was able to start it with the language as Gothic! I just wish I could change the headers, etc. and the lgo... It used to be that you call the logo Wiki.png, but now, it doesn't work...

I do, however, use the Gothic alphabet for the language primarily. And, there is a loanword here or there, like "artiklas". It's the best I could do. Shikku27316 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought that Gothic was caseless.

I was able to create this. If it's some other problem, then I would file a report.

As for the username... I would have changed it or made a new account first Heh heh...

Espreon (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Gothic has uppercase... Oh, now I remember, in the Codex Argenteus, they had none. Well, all the merrier! How do you type directly in Gothic characters? Also, I'm making the article about Aurvandil (Ozgwandils) currently. Oh, in Vandalic, "letter" would be "bukstavs". I'll try to make places to learn Vandalic, too, so more can edit (and the Wiki is for Vandalic). Shikku27316 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a (set of) manuscript(s) that has/have two distinct cases? If so, which? Sadly, even if what you say is true, Unicode probably doesn't encode the other case.

As for inputting Gothic letters... I just copied and pasted them. You could probably get some software to design a keyboard layout for Gothic letters.

You could just put help pages for learning Vandalic in another namespace on the wiki, I guess.

Perhaps we should continue our conversation on w:Freenode ("/query Espreon" if you get there)?

Espreon (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the uppercase was just made up for the font I have (Ulfilas). Let's continue talking on my talk page on the Wikia, here: [3] because I don't join websites much anymore. Shikku27316 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)