Gentlemen,

Tomorrow we start the Relay,
I'll send the initial Slovianski text to Steeven Radzikowski.

I remind, that when you receive the text from the preceeding participant, you
translate it to your conlang and send it to the next participant no later than
23:59 GMT of your schedule day.

- send your text to the next participant according to the Schedule;
- send your text and smooth (more-less literal) English translation of your text
to me: jarvi1986@...
- send a short message to The List: slavic_relay@yahoogroups.com

Don't forget to notify the List and the Master in case of unexpected problems or
delays.

The schedule and the rules are published here:
http://slavlang.ning.com/forum/topics/translation-relay-game

Please note that some e-mail clients don't support cyrillic and extended latin
scripts, so please attach a .doc or .pdf file with your text when sending it.

Good luck!
Andrej Moraczewski.

Gentlemen,

a Slavic Conlang Translation Relay is going to start on 30 Sep 2009.

I've invited all the participants to join Yahoo mailing list
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/slavic_relay/. This will be the Relay List,
where the participants should NOT post the translations, but should notify
everyone that: they have received the text from the previous participant (a
letter with "Torch received" subject), they have sent their translated text to
the following participant ("Torch passed" subject) or something has happened
that the participant won't be able to be on schedule ("Delay" or "Drop-out"
subject). Please join.

I'm working out the schedule of the game. Here is the first draft. If you don't
like the order, or you have your schedule days already busy, please inform.

SEND TIME   AUTHOR               LANGUAGE
We 30 Sep  Andrej Moraczewski   Slovianski
Fr 02 Oct  Steeven Radzikowski  Slovioski
Su 04 Oct  Jack Raven           Slovio
Tu 06 Oct  Rostislav Levczenko  Slovianski
Th 08 Oct  Eugen Slowik         Slovio
Sa 10 Oct  Igor Polyakov        Slovianski
Mo 12 Oct  Jukka Hintsala       Slavski
We 14 Oct  Jan van Steenbergen  Slovianski
Fr 16 Oct  Michal Borovicka     Slovioski
Su 18 Oct  Andrej Moraczewski   Slovianski

Best wishes,
Andrej Moraczewski.

I’ve received your message.



From: Slaviconlang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Slaviconlang@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Andrej Moraczewski
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:07 PM
To: slaviconlang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Slaviconlang] test





test





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

An alphabet

<http://blog.melroch.se/?p=30>


/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Sometimes you can't make it
   The best you can do is to fake it" (U2)

Pavel A. da Mek skrev:
  >> How would you all react to a (non-Slavic) Cyrillic-based
  >> alphabet using upside-down Cyrillic {s} and {z} for /T/
  >> and /D/? The idea is that a 19th century alphabet maker
  >> was able to turn existing lead types upside down to
  >> create new symbols, but not to add diacritics or wholly
  >> new shapes.
  >
  > What was easy for lead printers, that is not so easy for
  > computer printers.

Indeed, and I've restricted/modified my proposed alphabet
and phonology accordingly to letters/sounds that can be
found in or faked with DejaVu, i.e. in addition to the now
usual Russian alphabet:

- /D/
      - LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OPEN E
      - LATIN SMALL LETTER OPEN E
- /T/
      - LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OPEN O
      - LATIN SMALL LETTER OPEN O
- /e/
      - LATIN CAPITAL LETTER REVERSED E
      - LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA
- /jE/
      - CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER UKRAINIAN IE
      - CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER UKRAINIAN IE
- /i/
      - CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I
      - CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I
- /j@/
      - CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER YAT
      - CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER YAT
           - Hard sign is /@/!
- [g]
      - MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE + CYRILLIC CAPITAL
        LETTER GHE
      - MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE + CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE
           - [g] is a word initial allophone of [N] which is
             written with Cyrillic {ng} while {g} without an
             apostrophe is /G/. Probably {'g} occurs in other
             positions in loan words.
           - There is a similar allophony with [d] /nd)/ and
             [b] /mb)/ too, and the script is subphonemic in
                 these cases.
- /ji\/
      - CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER SOFT SIGN + CYRILLIC
        CAPITAL LETTER I
      - CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER SOFT SIGN + CYRILLIC SMALL
        LETTER I
- /ji/
      - CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER SOFT SIGN + CYRILLIC CAPITAL
        LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I
      - CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER SOFT SIGN + CYRILLIC SMALL
        LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I
           - You guessed it, /i/ and /i\/ are written _modo
             Ucrainico_!

Earlier versions of the alphabet included things like {nlx}
with hook and {iy} with diaeresis, which have had to go.
OTOH I'm annoyed at finding a good substitute for upside
down {r} where the lowercase really looks like an upside
down p, which I want for /4/ distinct from /r/.

The fictional setting is that a native improves an
orthography introduced by Russian missionaries, mainly by
using upside-down letters. The main exceptions are /@ j@ i
ji i\ ji\/ where redundancies in the existing 19th century
Russian letters were exploited instead. It may be noted that
{y} ends up unused!


/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
    à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
    ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
    c'est qu'elles meurent."           (Victor Hugo)

> How would you all react to a (non-Slavic) Cyrillic-based
> alphabet using upside-down Cyrillic {s} and {z} for /T/ and
> /D/? The idea is that a 19th century alphabet maker was able
> to turn existing lead types upside down to create new
> symbols, but not to add diacritics or wholly new shapes.

What was easy for lead printers, that is not so easy for computer printers.
I wonder why Unicode does not have an "upside-down modifier".
For the lower-case upside-down Cyrilic <z> can be used Greek <e>, but the
other three glyphs are not available in usual fonts as Times or Courier.
But for example in "DejaVu" font, there is available U+0186 uppercase opened
O, suitable for your upside-down Cyrillic {s}, and  U+0190 uppercase opened
E, suitable for your upside-down Cyrillic {z}. The lower-case characters are
U+0254 and U+025B.

       P. A.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:

> How would you all react to a (non-Slavic) Cyrillic-based
  >  alphabet using upside-down Cyrillic {s} and {z} for /T/ and
  >  /D/? The idea is that a 19th century alphabet maker was able
  >  to turn existing lead types upside down to create new
  >  symbols, but not to add diacritics or wholly new shapes.

  Makes sense to me, and I'm sure I've seen that kind of practice before
  (though I can't think of one right now).

  Ah wait, I remember seeing upside-down <G> as a surrogate for an eng,
  and also seeing upside-down upsilon-circumflex and iota-circumflex in
  early Modern Greek to indicate semivowel /j/.

  I read an article saying that they were intended to be written as a
  right-side-up iota or upsilon with a breve underneath, but an
  upside-down letter (so the circumflex would be "beneath" the
  character) was the best they could do in their typesetting.

  So - sounds like a plan to me.


  On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:09 AM, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:
  >  Wasn't their a native Cyrillic character for /T/?  If I'm remember
  >  right, it looked like an upper case Roman V.  The letter I'm
  >  thinking of is a V with a little tail on the upper right.  It's pictured
  >  here, but it doesn't give it's value, unless I'm missing it:
  >
  >  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabet>

  I think you're looking for the one to its left instead, that looks
  like an O with a horizontal bar in the middle.

  I'm not sure whether izhitsa or fita ever stood for [y] or [T],
  though, or whether they were merely etymological conventions
  indicating that this [i] or [f] (respectively) were an upsilon or a
  theta (respectively) in the original Greek.

  Later on, they got chucked because they did not indicate separate
  phonemes and were, therefore, redundant. (A bit, perhaps, like the way
  <K> got all but discarded in Latin in favour of using <C> for /k/
  everywhere.)

  Cheers,
--
  Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

How would you all react to a (non-Slavic) Cyrillic-based
alphabet using upside-down Cyrillic {s} and {z} for /T/ and
/D/? The idea is that a 19th century alphabet maker was able
to turn existing lead types upside down to create new
symbols, but not to add diacritics or wholly new shapes.



/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
    à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
    ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
    c'est qu'elles meurent."           (Victor Hugo)

Amanda Babcock Furrow skrev:
  > As an exercise in naturalistic sound change design, I'm
  > trying to implement the sound change rules for Early
  > Slavic through Proto-Slavic as described in Frederik
  > Kortlandt's "From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic", but I am
  > finding some of them too vague to usefully implement. For
  > example, in his section 5.6 "final s" goes to h, but then
  > in 5.9 we encounter "raising before final s". Apart from
  > the issue of where these final s's come from that are
  > conditioning the raising, I am unable to tell from the
  > relevant paragraph which vowels are raising, and to what
  > they have been raised.
  >
  > In short, does anyone know where I can find these rules
  > already written in X -> Y / Z_ format? Or is this period
  > of the development of Slavic still more art than science,
  > with no sufficiently clear sound change rules having been
  > established to support such a formalization?

It just ain't the comparatist habit to use such notation,
but the book by Carlton listed below is pretty clear anyway
(Because it is meant to be a freshman course).

I've been trying to digest the contents into Henrik's SCH
format, which is based on the X -> Y / Z_ format, with
additional sections for Slvanjek and Chuzhde of course, but
haven't had the time so far.

<http://www.theiling.de/downloads/schcompile-1.0003.tgz>

Contains manual/syntax description. (Henrik, you should
really make the manual available in non-compressed format!)

An example:

<http://www.kunstsprachen.de/s25/gmp25.sch>

  > Thanks, Amanda
  >

Terence R. Carlton "Introduction to the Phonological History
of the Slavic Languages"

worldcat.org: <http://tinyurl.com/25b83u> bookfinder.com:
<http://tinyurl.com/277dty>

Also, not seen by me:

"Common and comparative Slavic : phonology and
inflection : with special attention to Russian, Polish,
Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian" by Charles Edward
Townsend; Laura A Janda

worldcat.org: <http://tinyurl.com/2f4xw6> bookfinder.com:
<http://tinyurl.com/27x459>

Both perhaps unincidentally from the same publisher...



/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
    à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
    ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
    c'est qu'elles meurent."           (Victor Hugo)

As an exercise in naturalistic sound change design, I'm trying to implement
the sound change rules for Early Slavic through Proto-Slavic as described
in Frederik Kortlandt's "From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic", but I am
finding some of them too vague to usefully implement.  For example, in his
section 5.6 "final s" goes to h, but then in 5.9 we encounter "raising
before final s".  Apart from the issue of where these final s's come from
that are conditioning the raising, I am unable to tell from the relevant
paragraph which vowels are raising, and to what they have been raised.

In short, does anyone know where I can find these rules already written in
X -> Y / Z_  format?  Or is this period of the development of Slavic still
more art than science, with no sufficiently clear sound change rules having
been established to support such a formalization?

Thanks,
Amanda

Having completed a course called "The Slavic peoples and
languages" -- an Übersichtskurs if ever there was one --
and started the first non-beginners course in Russian
grammar (for the second time as a nasty lung infection kept
me home with my son for many weeks the last two semesters)
has gotten me thinking about Slvanjek again.

1) One thing I'm clear about is that I want a Slavic-like
     tense and aspect system, i.e. most of all with the past
     tense from the past participle. But then one would need
     something else to function as participles in two tenses
     and two voices, and I have come up with a scheme to get
     all that from attested (Vulgar) Latin material: the past
     tense from the -ATUS participle, then for the forms
     synchronically functioning as such:

      - the present active from -ANDO or -ANTE i.e. no need
        for any innovation.
      - the present passive from -ATURUS, a reasonable change
        of meaning when the substrate lang has no future
        participle.
      - the past active from -ATIVUS and
      - the past passive from -ATICUS.

     As for gerunds they can be derived from Latin adverbial
     forms -ANTER and -ATICE, rather than from the Latin
     gerund; -ATICUS forms will have the third balatalization
     of C and -ATICE forms will have the second
     palatalization. The only thing that possibly worries me
     with this scheme is that - ATIVUS, -ATICUS, and -ATICE
     forms properly derive not from second declension pp's in
     -ATUS but from fourth declension action nouns in -ATUS,
     but seeing how the second and fourth declension merge in
     Vulgar Latin such a 'reassignment' at the hands of
     substrate speakers doesn't seem unreasonable to me. To be
     sure OCS had a different, more PIE tense sysytem, but it
     seems reasonable that Slavo-Romance would follow the flow
     of the Slavic languages, and so come up with something
     like this, notwithstanding the highly Romance- style
     verbal system of Rumanian
     : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_verbs>
     After all Slvanjek is supposed to be more 'deeply'
     Slavicized than Rumanian.

2) I'm more convinced than ever that there must be an
     adverbial form in -o derived from the Latin neuter
     ablative with implied MODO. The first person singular of
     the verb will still have -u, perhaps by analogy with SUM
     > *so~ > su (yes I know it's weak...)

3) I've also come to the conclusion that I'd much rather
     derive the long adjective from postposed ILLE than from
     IS, which properly shouldn't exist in Vulgar Latin. The
     true way to do that is of course by having Vulgar Latin
     LJ become j, as in Rumanian. I figure there will be a
     secondary lj later from

      - LI(N/LI(M, LE~ > lja,
      - LI(VO > ljo,
      - LI(VU > lju

     of course

      - JUBEO > JUVJO > julju,
      - LIBITUM > LIB'TU > LIUTU > ljut, and likewise
      - DEBITUM > djut/dziut.

     not to speak of LE(, LE:, LI( > lje against LU( > le.
     Perhaps I will not get a lot of lj this way, but I
     will get more intervocalic j.s, which Latin provides
     far too few.

4) I'm thinking of developing an instrumental from postposed
     CUM, like Spanish gets _con migo_ from CUM MECUM. I don't
     know if it's Good or bad that -CU(M) would end up
     sometimes as -c and sometimes as -k depending on the
     declension, but I'm leaning towards seeing it as Good.

/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
    à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
    ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
    c'est qu'elles meurent."           (Victor Hugo)

to speak for humble me,
a) i am constructing one diachronic a posteriori language (nassian),
where the protolang is somehow constructed too, but is real (early
common slavic)

b) and one diachronic a priori language (arkian), where the
historicity is fully constructed, even the protolang is constructed

within both, i have started with some preliminary ideas what the sound
of contemporary version would be. ie. in nassian i wanted no [j], no
[v], no palatals, lots of umlauts and geminates. then i had to find a
logical way to it, respecting natural sound-speech changes. as you
know, they were many re-iterations of it as few of my intentions were
unreal and few appeared to be necessary although not wanted. but the
major problem for me was to reconstruct the protolang, cos early
common slavic is not hobby of majority of slavists and me is poor/pure
amateur. to create a historical phonology was relatively easy. more
complicate - historical grammar. the worse was and still my nightmare
- historical lexicology, ie. line of succession of meanings and
related words (ie. in real slavic languages the original word for
"member of our tribe" became word for "foreigner"; there are tons of
such meaning shifts and they make language real). hell difficult and
almost impossible-to-crack problem.

arkian was easier. there was the protolang, Hiberian, constructed by
my friend and it was a solid constant in my work. i only have to find
a way from hiberan to arkian, which is even more easier if i assume
that the time between them is short and arkian is constructed language
per se, in the definition of its construction scheme. nassian has vast
time period between protolang and actual state (1500 years), is more
"real", should be logical, quasi-natural and believable.

i am thinking about to write bachelor thesis in common linguistics on
construction of fictive diachronic language, cos it is appealing problem.

hope it helps or is interesting anyway.

I have been thinking lately about how 'historical
conlangers' go about their work, and am thinking of
eventually turning the thoughts into some kind of essay. I
would appreciate what others who are into that line of
conlanging think of what I've come up with so far.

Apologies to those who get this message multiply, but I want to
reach as many as possible.

- People usually have one language or dialect which was
    there first in real time, and which often remains central
    to the whole edifice, from which various imaginary
    ancestors, daughters and siblings (what I call "stages" or
    "nodes") radiate.

    - It is notably often *not* the protolanguage (the highest
      node in the linguistic family tree) which was there
      first in real time, but some later form which gets
      labeled "classical" or some variety thereof.

- I make a terminological distinction between 'versions' in
    real time and 'stages' in imaginary time meant to provide
    orientation when exploring the development through real
    time of the imaginary history of imaginary languages,
    where one has to deal with two dimensions of time:

    - Effectively any piece of linguistic creation by an
      historical conlanger has to be placed on a coordinatde
      system where one axis is the conlanger's lifetime and
      the other axis the history of the imaginary universe
      where the stages are spoken.

    - It is not necessarily or usually the case that what I
      call a later version of one language represents a break
      or fresh start relative to any or all earlier versions.
      A new version need not be a rewrite, but probably a
      conscious revision as opposed to a tweak or a bug fix.
      :-) Changes and differences may be gradual, cumulative,
      abrupt or whatever.

    - "Stages" may go through various "versions" or
      "revisions", often without all the stages being
      revised at the same time, although a revision in some
      place in the family tree -- especially a major one --
      may of course have larger or smaller repercussions
      throughout the tree.

      - Some stages are revised more often and/or more
        extensively than others.

      - The "central" stage tends to undergo less revision
        than other stages.

      - Changes to the "central" stage are likely to have more
        and heavier repercussions on other stages.

      - The protolanguage, being primary in imagined time but
        secondary in real time actually tends to get revised
        more, usually with a view to make it more plausible as
        a common ancestor of sibling nodes lower in the tree.

-    Unlike real language history the protolanguage is a
           secondary product made to fit its daughters.

    - Should I use the term "node", as on an imaginary family
      tree, throughout instead of "stage". What do native
      English speakers think of these terms (stage, node,
      version) as I use them?

Thanks in advance for your comments!

Pavel Iosad skrev:
> Hello,
>
>> It seems I can suddenly neither post to nor receive mails from this
>>  group...
>
> It was a Yahoo! hiccup. I got your previous message with the following
> kindly attached:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups SpamGuard has detected that the attached message to the
> owner of the Yahoo! Group Slaviconlang is likely to be spam.
> For more information about SpamGuard, please visit our help pages:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/local/spamguard.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've checked it and your settings are clearly "Same as group", so no
> worry, I think.
>
> Pavel

Mewonders if the thing thought the cyrillics or the
transcriptions
were obfuscations of foul words!  J�drans yahooer!

--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

     "Maybe" is a strange word.  When mum or dad says it
     it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
     means "no"!

                             (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)

Hello,

> It seems I can suddenly neither post to nor receive mails from this
>  group...

It was a Yahoo! hiccup. I got your previous message with the following
kindly attached:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups SpamGuard has detected that the attached message to the
owner of the Yahoo! Group Slaviconlang is likely to be spam.
For more information about SpamGuard, please visit our help pages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/local/spamguard.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've checked it and your settings are clearly "Same as group", so no
worry, I think.

Pavel

On 9/25/06, BP Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:
> It seems I can suddenly neither post to nor receive mails from this
> group...

I got your message.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

It seems I can suddenly neither post to nor receive mails from this
group...

Hello,

> I'm looking for a Russian handwriting font.

Try

http://www.win-design.ru/o_fonts_ruk_1.shtml
http://www.win-design.ru/o_fonts_ruk_2.shtml

(these are all free, or at least the page says so)

http://font.uralpro.ru/font.ttf/hand1.html

You might also try to generally click through the results at
http://www.yandex.ru/yandsearch?stype=www&nl=0&text=%F0%F3%EA%EE%EF%E8%F1%ED%FB%\
E9+%F8%F0%E8%F4%F2
(this is a search for "handwriting fonts")

Hope this helps,
Pavel

PS- The Pushkin one looks nice and authentic, though rather hard to
decipher at first glance.

I'm looking for a Russian handwriting font.
It is important that it look like actual handwriting
rather than like hand-drawn block letters.  Preferably
it should look neither too formal or too distorted,
and it is of course good if it is free, although the
latter is no absolute requirement, seeing how hard
it is to find anything along these lines on the
internet.

TIA,

/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

     "Maybe" is a strange word.  When mum or dad says it
     it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
     means "no"!

                             (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)

--- Benct Philip Jonsson skrzypszy:

> how are questions formed in Slavic langs?

I think other have already replied that question better than I could.


> I know Polish has a question particle _czy_,
> famously borrowed into Esperanto as _chu_.

Yes, but it's not exactly obligatory. What good old Yitzik said about
Ukrainian is equally valid for Polish. It's either _Czy ..._ or
simply a matter of intonation and adding a question mark. Sometimes I
even get the feeling that there's something slightly old-fashioned or
formalistic about _czy_, but I'm not sure about that.

> If so, how might a Romano-Slavic language copy
> this?  What does Wenedyk do, Jan?

Now you're asking me to state the utterly obvious! ;)) There are two
ways: either have the declarative sentence preceded by _szy_, or
solve with with intonation only.

On a related note, I've always been quite fond of French "est-ce
que", from Latin EST ECCE ISTUM QUID > [Esk] .

Cheers,
Jan

"If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed
room with a mosquito."

http://steen.free.fr/







.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Pavel A. da Mek girs'epset':

| > how are questions formed in Slavic langs?
| >
| > I know Polish has a question particle _czy_,
| > famously borrowed into Esperanto as _chu_.
| > Is this parallelled in the other Slavlangs?
|
| In Czech, the interrogative sentences differ from the declarative
sentences
| only by the raised tone at the end of the sentence.

In Russian, the interrogative sentence ("general question") differs from the
declarative one by a different intonation pattern. Usage of the particle
_li_ is peculiar to the higher register of speech and is probably an OChS
borrowing, as we see it widely used in Bulgarian: _imash li moliv_ 'do you
have a pencil?'.
In Ukrainian, both intonation pattern change and question particle _chy_ are
equally valid.

-- Yitzik

> how are questions formed in Slavic langs?
>
> I know Polish has a question particle _czy_,
> famously borrowed into Esperanto as _chu_.
> Is this parallelled in the other Slavlangs?

In Czech, the interrogative sentences differ from the declarative sentences
only by the raised tone at the end of the sentence.

       P.A.

On 3/27/06, Benct Philip Jonsson <melroch@...> wrote:
> how are questions formed in Slavic langs?
>
> I know Polish has a question particle _czy_,
> famously borrowed into Esperanto as _chu_.
> Is this parallelled in the other Slavlangs?

Certainly in some -- IIRC, Belorusan and/or Ukrainian has ці _tsi_,
with similar usage.

However, Russian does not have this word AFAIK. ли _li_ is used in
some questions, but the grammar is different (it comes after the verb,
I believe), and I'm not sure how to use it.

I don't know about Czech or other Slavic languages.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Dear friends,

how are questions formed in Slavic langs?

I know Polish has a question particle _czy_,
famously borrowed into Esperanto as _chu_.
Is this parallelled in the other Slavlangs?

If so, how might a Romano-Slavic language copy
this?  What does Wenedyk do, Jan?

--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

     "Maybe" is a strange word.  When mum or dad says it
     it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
     means "no"!

                             (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)

Recently, discussing the history of Preymarn and Mecklenburg *there*,
we came with Jan I. and Kristian to vague conclusion, that it is not
QSS excluded, that there are Slavs in theses regions even in our time.

I would like to follow the idea. Prelimarily, I think about ca 20 000
Polabians in Mecklenburg and about bigger minority of Pommerians in
Venedic and German Preymarn. The Pommeranians of *there* would be
Kashubs and Pommeran Slovenians of *here*, not splittered, not
extinct. Currently, I am on a verge for data collection and
preparation of the hypothesis for their establishment.

Any comments, ideas?

Jan II.

Pavel A. da Mek skrev:
>>try <http://www.melroch.se/conlang/slevan/slevan.php>.
>>Unfortunately the program for some
>>reason doesn't work in Internet Explorer, however.
>
>
> Try to change
>
> <button value="submit" name="submit">
>
> to
>
> <button value="submit" name="submit" type="submit">
>
> I think that this will work.

It did, thanks!  I also changed so that any non-word
characters in the input will be stripped rather than
cause an error.  You will still get a list of
"ETYMON > reflex" each on a line as output however!
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

     "Maybe" is a strange word.  When mum or dad says it
     it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
     means "no"!

                             (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)

> try <http://www.melroch.se/conlang/slevan/slevan.php>.
> Unfortunately the program for some
> reason doesn't work in Internet Explorer, however.

Try to change

<button value="submit" name="submit">

to

<button value="submit" name="submit" type="submit">

I think that this will work.

       P.A.

I vonder about the scope and timing of *ě > *a backing in
Common Slavic.

Does it apply only after *č *š *ž *j or also after
*c' *s' *z' *r' *l' *n'.  I think it only applies
after *č *š *ž *j, since *kaina > cěna and not **cana
but I'm not 100% since my sources don't list the
conditioning sounds, but only says "after palatal
consonants".

Also I assume that *ě > *a happens after second
palatalization (since *ě2 triggers it) and backing
applies to *ě2 and *ě3 as well as to *ě1.
Is that correct?
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

     "Maybe" is a strange word.  When mum or dad says it
     it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
     means "no"!

                             (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)

Pavel A. da Mek skrev:
>>try <http://www.melroch.se/conlang/slevan/slevan.php>.
>
>
> When entering whole sentence with a punctuation mark,
> the program fails:
>
>  Failed evaluating code: strtolower(.)

Sure, it ain't designed to process sentences but lists of
words.
--

/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                 A h-ammen ledin i phith!                \ \
      __  ____ ____    _____________ ____ __   __ __     / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \  /___  _____/\ \\__ \\ \  \ \\ \   / /
      / /   / /  /  \    / /Melroch\ \_/ // /  / // /  / /
     / /___/ /_ / /\ \  / /Roccondil\_  // /__/ // /__/ /
    /_________//_/  \_\/ /Eowine __  / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
   ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)

> try <http://www.melroch.se/conlang/slevan/slevan.php>.

When entering whole sentence with a punctuation mark,
the program fails:

  Failed evaluating code: strtolower(.)

       P.A.