The West Saxon Scratchpad (Formerly the West Saxon Thread)

[Christopher Schröder]

Good, good. I'm also quite fond of Germanic orthographies in general, and West Saxon has a rather nice feel to it (in addition to being fun to say if I am guessing the pronunciations correctly).

[Herra Ratatoskr]

An incomplete draft of the orthography page is up. Though it still needs some work, it should give you a pretty complete picture of how West Saxon in pronounced. As the complete page will note, the realizations in the "pronunciation" column are the phonemic realizations, while in the examples, the phonetic realization of the words are given, which might lead to some discrepancies. If you're curious about something, I'd be happy to explain. Enjoy!

[TaylorS]

WS has an initial velar nasal derived from /kn/? AWESOME!

[Herra Ratatoskr]

Yes, yes it does.

And it is.

[Neek]

I did notice a few errors, so can I get some clarification?
* cg is [ dʒ ], yet Rheocg is [ ˈɹøʒ ].
* Rhefn is pronounced [ ˈɹeː.vm̩ ]. Shouldn't this be [n=]? Nevermind, just reread the Vowel section. Seems I've forgotten that!
* oa is listed as [ oa ], but yet in the example given, it's [ bɔət ]. Is there some sort of reduction going on?
* P "before m" becomes [ b ]. Don't you mean "after m"?

Beside that, I am excessively impressed with the work you have done so far.

[Herra Ratatoskr]

You're right, p should be [ b ] after m. I'll go fix that.

The other two aren't errors, but the results of phonetic processes in West Saxon. (as I mentioned in my post, there would be some seeming discrepancies because of this. I'll make sure to make this very clear in the complete version of the page).

The reason Rheocg is pronounced [ˈɹøʒ] is because [dʒ] simplifies to [ʒ] when it is a syllable coda. The dative singular, on the other hand, would be Rheocge, pronounced [ˈɹøː.dʒə], since the final schwa "pulls" the cg into the onset of a separate syllable. An identical process happens with [tʃ], simplifying to [ʃ]. Indeed, you can see it in the example ec.

As for Boat, if you look on the vowel page, you'll see that the tonix lax form of [ɔa] is [ɔə]. Since the coda of Boat is voiceless, the diphthong is realized as lax.

Hope that clears things up for you, and thanks for the feedback!

[Christopher Schröder]

I like the orthography so far, but why has thorn been preserved and the original eth (ð) not? Is there no distinction between the voiced and voiceless sound that would make this necessary? If I recall correctly, English has a few words in which they are actually distinguished, but wreath and wreathe are the only ones I can think of at the moment.

I also might have expected "ch" for "k" in a manner similar to Italian, but the adoption of k for hard c under Norman influence (I presume the Norman conquest still happens) would make a bit more sense.

I got a few things wrong at first owing to my default pronunciation of ei, ej being something like /ej/ rather than /aj/, and I was pronouncing ou like /u:/. Hopefully, I should be able to keep the proper pronunciation in mind.

[Herra Ratatoskr]

Well, in Old English, eth and thorn were used indiscriminately, and eth fell out of use quite a bit earlier than thorn. I figured that, since it didn't really serve a distinct purpose it would be dropped in West Saxon, as it looks somewhat close to d. The only time there is a voicing distinction made, it comes from earlier long þ vs short þ. The same holds true for s.

The use of "ci" as a marker of [tʃ] before a back vowel is not based off of Italian actually (though I see it does look that way). I'm of the opinion that the initial vowels of "ie, "ea", and "eo" before palatal consonants in Old English were in many cases strictly orthographic, for a number of reasons. The "ci" diagraph is a continuation of this practice. The use of k before front vowels is modeled on languages like German, actually.

The Norman conquest does occur, but is incomplete. In this timeline William is grievously wounded at Hastings and dies shortly after. There is general anarchy for a while, and England is torn into two countries, one Saxon, one Norman. By the time of Edward III, the English make Wessex a client state, with King of Wessex being a vassal to the English king. This relationship continues more or less until Wessex is conquered in the 1660s by Charles II, but pledges support to William of Orange in exchange for independence (they get relative autonomy). Wessex achieves full independence in 1923.

[Neek]

You're right, p should be [ b ] after m. I'll go fix that.

Glad I could catch a typo!

The other two aren't errors, but the results of phonetic processes in West Saxon. (as I mentioned in my post, there would be some seeming discrepancies because of this. I'll make sure to make this very clear in the complete version of the page).

Would be nice. I should have figured out Rheocg on analogy to the situation with [ tʃ ], but I haven't been all here. And I'm stupid for not having remembered that bit about the stressed form of [ ɔa ]. I'm glad to see that the phonology even takes me a minute to get.

I am curious, however, what sort of influences does the phonology have to the concurrent English in this timeline?

I can't actually wait to see more; I'd like to see the consonant section soon, as well as more on verbs and that delicious, delicious syntax.

[Bristel]

I'm interested in whether Ireland was a vassal state or was independent of the English control in the West Saxon conworld?

The time period of Wessex independence is similar to that of the start of the Irish Free State.

[Herra Ratatoskr]

Ireland does spend time under English rule in this timeline as well, and I actually had West Saxon independence be semi-inspired by Irish independence (though there had been an independence movement since the very late 18th century). The 1923 independence is actually more in name than anything else; full independence didn't technically come until 1926. Since the end of direct English rule in 1688, the position of king of Wessex had been downgraded to "High Earl" of Wessex. Domestic policy was guided by the Wetnimot, which by now was a West Saxon analogue of parliament, but foreign policy was ruled by England. With Ireland's independence, West Saxons began agitating for complete autonomy. The heir to High Earl of Wessex was the future Elfred (Alfred) VI, who lead negotiations with Parliament for a split in place of his ailing father. Negotiations were being finalized when Elfred's father, High Earl Joen (John) II passed away. Elfred was then declared the first King of Wessex in over 350 years. There was a 3 year transition process, while Wessex developed prepared for full independence, but afterwards Wessex was recognized with Dominion status. Wessex continues to be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The King of Wessex is, like his ancestors prior to England's domination, technically a vassal of the English crown, but this is essentially in name only.

Today Wessex is mostly Saxon, though English is widely spoken as a second language and is an official language of Wessex, along with West Saxon and (now) Cornish. Wessex-English, the dialect of native English speakers who are from Wessex, is slowly dying out as a first language as more and more "Engls" are raising their children to speak West Saxon.

[Herra Ratatoskr]

A still-quite-sketchy version of the Verbal Morphology page is now up. It's got verb tables!

[Nortaneous]

Is the v/w alternation in the preterite indicative of vritn supposed to be there?

[Herra Ratatoskr]

D'oh!

Fixed. Thanks for catching the typo!

[TomHChappell]

A still-quite-sketchy version of the Verbal Morphology page is now up. It's got verb tables!

I like the fact that a "nerd" is one who has protected or who would protect.

[Herra Ratatoskr]

My god, I hadn't noticed that. Cool!

[Herra Ratatoskr]

The simple sentence structure chapter is up, but only the first half is done. I still need to write up the basic transformation rules. Hope y'all enjoy!

[Christopher Schröder]

Sorry I'm a bit late, but I do like what I see so far.

With regards to the orthography, did you mean to write that t is pronounced as /d/ after /m/ on the pattern of p and k? You currently have it (rather redundantly) as being said /t/ adter /n/. I find it amusing to try to pronounce it regardless, and shall look forward to the next update on sentence structure.

[Herra Ratatoskr]

Geez, this thread has been dormant for a while. Time to bring it back to life again.

Updates: I've been doing some research on Late Old English, and have been doing some thinking. There are changes being made; some already decided, some I'm still debating, and would like some feedback on. First, the things that are set:

* I've changed the -n ending of the infinitive, strong past participle, and weak adjective declension to -e.
* I've reworked a couple sound changes, most notably initial splitting of y/eo to ju/jo now only occurs if the vowels are long. The change of tw to cw has been undone, but dw to gw has been kept. Old West Saxon [a(:)] becomes [O:] before (mb/nd/ng), and those consonant clusters block later diphthongization of all vowels.
* I've de-regularized the spelling system a bit.

Things I'm debating:

Keeping articles inflected for case. More and more it seems that in other West Germanic languages, articles are the last thing to lose case markings (except for pronouns), and West Saxon only doing gender and number feels increasingly weird, when nouns still have case markings.

Keeping a distinct accusative case for pronouns (and articles, if they end up inflecting for case). Investigations are showing that the accusative was hardier than I had originally thought.

And the biggie:
Making Early Middle West Saxon's strong dative plural ending -e. Recent investigations seem to suggest that (real-life) late West Saxon was moving in this direction by about 1050, prior to my timelines POD, and trying to ignore this makes me uncomfortable. To deal with this issue, I could:

a)level the plural endings so the nominative/accusative and dative match (as happened in pretty much every Middle English Dialect by about 1200, with minor exceptions). This would essentially make all nouns "weak". and have the only distinct datives be found in the singular. Problem: I really like the dative case, and I'm sad enough that a decent portion of my nouns (the weak declension) already no longer shows it as distinct.
or...
b)the same as above, but then go on to say that the -e of the dative singular becomes "detached", and attaches to the leveled plural forms, making the new declensions basically:

Code: Select all

S   Pl  | S    Pl
-  -s/- | -e  -en
-s -ne  | -es -ne
-e -se  | -e  -ne

From what I've seen of the continental scandinavian languages, they do a similar thing, except with the genitive -s. Problem: It seems somewhat forced, and looks rather unlikely to my eyes. What do y'all think?
or...
c)say "Screw number distinctions!" and let -e be the dative ending for both the singular and plural. Number could be shown via article and adjective agreement, but not via nominal inflection (except for a few irregular nouns). So it would sort of be like the genitive in English. Problem: I've seen no Middle English dialect that even came close to maintaining such a system for any length of time, and makes me feel uneasy.
or finally...
d)say "To Hell with it!" and keep the dative plural as -en, saying something along the lines of "scribal tradition kept the -en ending alive, and eventually it got reincorperated back into the everyday spoken langauge". Problem: in addition to the unease mentioned at the beginning, I can't think of a time when perscriptivism has reversed a change like this.

O wise ZBBers, lend me your collective wisdom in helping sort out these matters!


The not-so-wise can also give me their $0.02 also

[Herra Ratatoskr]

Okay, after much cogitation, I've made my decision on the dative plural: it's getting leveled, mostly (i.e. I'm going with option "a" from my previous post). The accusative is back, and articles will be inflected. Adjectives still will have simple inflections for number & gender, but no case (in the modern language).

Part of this decision came from restarting the derivation process, starting with codifying Early Middle West Saxon (from circa 1250). I wanted something that was much closer to the language of the Ayenbite of Inwyt, Layamon's Brut, The Owl and the Nightingale, or the AB language of the Katherine Group. Eventually this will find its way into an appendix, but in the meantime, I thought some of you might like a peek at the language as it stood then, to keep you interested until I finish repairing the wreckage this round of revision has wrought. Enjoy!

Spelling:
I'm still working on the peculiarities of the consonants, but I've got the generally accepted orthography for the vowels down:

Code: Select all

Long Vowel    Short Vowels  Diphthongs
/ii/ -> [i:]  /i/  -> [I]   /ie/ -> [i@]
/ei/ -> [e:]  /e/  -> [e]   /ij/ -> [Ij]
/ea/ -> [E:]  /æ/  -> [E]   /ej/ -> [Ej]
/iu/ -> [y:]  /y/  -> [Y]   /uy/ -> [YH]
/eu/ -> [2:]  /eo/ -> [9]   /ey/ -> [9H]
/uu/ -> [u:]  /u/  -> [U]   /uw/ -> [uw]
/ou/ -> [o:]  /o/  -> [O]   /ue/ -> [u@]
/oa/ -> [O:]  /a/  -> [a]   /ow/ -> [Ow]
/aa/ -> [A:]                /aw/ -> [Aw]

It should be noted that "j" and "w" in the manuscripts of the time were actually yogh, "ȝ" and wynn, "ƿ". for simplicity's sake, I've changed them to their modern equivalents. So in the manuscripts, "ii" and "uu" would be written "ii" and "uu", while "ij" and "uw" would have actually been "iȝ" and "uƿ"; [e:] would be written "ei", while [Ej] would literally be "eȝ", and so forth.

Nouns
Each gender appears in one of five classes (the ordering isn't really finalized, I just wrote them as I remembered them. I'll do some tidying on that later to help them sync up better.

Masculine:

Code: Select all

     Class I           Class II      Class III     Class IV      Class V
     Sing    Plur      Sing  Plur    Sing Plur     Sing   Plur   Sing  Plur
Nom  Stoan   Stoanes   Ende  Endes   Asse Assen    Vout   Veit   Bære  Bærus
Acc  Stoan   Stoanes   Ende  Endes   Asse Assen    Vout   Veit   Bære  Bærus
Gen  Stoanes Stoanene  Endes Endene  Asse Assene   Voutes Veite  Bærus Bærune
Dat  Stoane  Stoanes   Ende  Endes   Asse Assen    Voute  Veite  Bærue Bærus

"Stoan": stone
"Ende": end
"Asse": donkey, ass
"Vout": foot
"Bære": grove

Feminine:

Code: Select all

     Class I      Class II       Class III    Class IV         Class V
     Sing Plur    Sing  Plur     Sing  Plur   Sing   Plur      Sing  Plur
Nom  Dure Duren   Soul  Soulen   Bouk  Beic   Cwein  Cweinen   Mead   Meadun
Acc  Dure Duren   Soule Soulen   Bouk  Beic   Cwein  Cweinen   Meadue Meadun
Gen  Dure Durene  Soule Soulene  Bouke Beice  Cweine Cweinene  Meadue Meadune
Dat  Dure Duren   Soule Soulen   Bouke Beice  Cweine Cweinen   Meadue Meadun

"Dure": door
"Soul": soul
"Bouk": book
"Cwein": princess, wife
"Mead": meadow

Neuter:

Code: Select all

     Class I        Class II        Class III    Class IV   Class V
     Sing   Plur    Sing   Plur     Sing Plur    Sing Plur  Sing  Plur
Nom  Hors   Hors    Scip   Scipen   Ej   Ejren   Eje  Ejen  Bæle  Bæle
Acc  Hors   Hors    Scip   Scipen   Ej   Ejren   Eje  Ejen  Bæle  Bæle
Gen  Horses Horse   Scipes Scipene  Ejes Ejrene  Eje  Ejne  Bælus Bælue
Dat  Horse  Horse   Scipe  Scipen   Eje  Ejren   Eje  Ejen  Bælue Bælue

"Hors": horse
"Scip": ship
"Ej": egg
"Eje": eye (the only weak neuter of the period)
"Bæle": evil

Adjectives
The strong declension of adjectives are as follows (with "goud", meaning "good") as an example:

Code: Select all

    Masc   Fem    Neut  Plur
Nom goud   goude  goud  goud(e)
Acc goudne goude  goud  goud(e)
Gen goude  gouder goude gouder
Dat goude  gouder goude goude

In the weak inflection, it is invariably "goude". The "e" in parenthesis in the plural represents an ending that is dropped if both a) the head is neuter and b) the adjective stem is heavy (has a long vowel, diphthong, or consonant cluster as a coda).

Pronouns
Personal pronouns:

Code: Select all

   "I" "We" "Thou" "Ye"
Nom ic  wei  þu     jei
Acc mei us   þei    jow
Gen min ur   þin    jowr
Dat mei us   þei    jow

    "He"  "She" "It" "They"
Nom  he    heo   hit  hi
Acc  hine  hi(s) hit  hi
Gen  his   hir   his  har
Dat  him   hir   him  heom

Demonstratives:

Code: Select all

    Article/"That"
    Masc Fem Neut Plur
Nom þe   þeo þat  þo
Acc þene þo  þat  þo
Gen þes  þer þas  þor
Dat þem  þer þam  þom

   "This"
    Masc  Fem  Neut  PLur
Nom þis   þeos þis   þos
Acc þisen þos  þis   þos
Gen þises þise þises þose
Dat þise  þise þise  þose

Verbs
Strong Verb:

Code: Select all

Infinitive: ete
Gerund:     to etene
Pres. Part: etinde
Past Part:  jiete

Present
    Indicative  Subjunctive  Imperative
    Sing Plur   Sing Plur    Sing Plur
1st ete  eteþ   ete  etin    -    -
2nd itst eteþ   ete  etin    et   eteþ
3rd it   eteþ   ete  etin    -    -

Preterite
  Indicative    Subjunctive
    Sing Plur   Sing Plur
1st æt   eten   eate eatin
2nd eate eten   eate eatin
3rd æt   eten   eate eatin

Class I Weak Verbs

Code: Select all

Infinitive: deime
Gerund:     to deimene
Pres. Part: deiminde
Past Part:  jideimed

Present
    Indicative     Subjunctive   Imperative
    Sing   Plur    Sing  Plur    Sing Plur
1st deime  deimeþ  deime deimin  -    -
2nd deimst deimeþ  deime deimin  deim deimeþ
3rd deimþ  deimeþ  deime deimin  -    -

Preterite
  Indicative          Subjunctive
    Sing     Plur     Sing   Plur
1st deimde   deimden  deimde deimdin
2nd deimdest deimden  deimde deimdin
3rd deimde   deimden  deimde deimdin

Class II Weak Verbs

Code: Select all

Infinitive: lufie
Gerund:     to lufine
Pres. Part: lufinde
Past Part:  jilufed

Present
    Indicative     Subjunctive   Imperative
    Sing   Plur    Sing  Plur    Sing Plur
1st lufie  lufieþ  lufie lufien  -    -
2nd lufest lufieþ  lufie lufien  lufe lufieþ
3rd lufeþ  lufieþ  lufie lufien  -    -

Preterite
  Indicative          Subjunctive
    Sing     Plur     Sing   Plur
1st lufede   lufeden  lufede lufedin
2nd lufedest lufeden  lufede lufedin
3rd lufede   lufeden  lufede lufedin

To be

Code: Select all

Infinitive: beun
Gerund:     to beune
Pres. Part: wesinde
Past Part:  jibeun

Present ("b" Forms)
    Indicative  Subjunctive  Imperative
    Sing Plur   Sing Plur    Sing Plur
1st beu  beuþ   beu  beun    -    -
2nd bist beuþ   beu  beun    beu beuþ
3rd biþ  beuþ   beu  beun    -    -

Present ("s" Forms)
    Indicative  Subjunctive
    Sing Plur   Sing Plur
1st eom  siind  sii  siin
2nd ært  siind  sii  siin
3rd is   siind  sii  siin

Preterite
  Indicative      Subjunctive
    Sing  Plur    Sing  Plur
1st was   waaren  waare waarin
2nd waare waaren  waare waarin
3rd was   waaren  waare waarin

[Christopher Schröder]

Now I am curious — what is the difference, if any, in the usage of the present b- and s-forms of the copula?

[Herra Ratatoskr]

At the beginning of the period, the two forms are somewhat interchangeable. The "s forms" are used mainly for non-intrinsic states, sort of like Spanish estar, while the "b forms" are for intrinsic states, like Spanish ser, and for general truths. In some descriptions of the language, this useage of the Middle West Saxon "b form" is occasionally called the "gnomic copula". The "b forms" are also used for future states, and as a future auxiliary appearing with both the simple and inflected infinitive. It competes with the auxiliaries "willen" and "sculen" to become the default marker of futurity by the end of the period (around 1550). By this time the "b forms" have taken on the role of a distinct future tense form of the verb "beun". The "gnomic future" begins a decline in usage towards the end of the Middle West Saxon period, and is limited to a few set phrases by the dawn of Contemporary West Saxon (circa 1850).

[Herra Ratatoskr]

Here's something for you: actual new info on the language, rather than revision. I've got the outlines of a chapter on prepositions done. What do you all think?
Inflected Prepositions
With the loss of the distinction of the dative case in the plural, and with weak nouns, some confusion can arise as to the meaning of the preposition. Therefore, prepositions which can govern the dative and accusative have special "strong" forms; one for the masculine, neuter, and plural, and one for the feminine. These are based on fusion of the preposition with the article, much like German compounds like im or zur. There forms are as follows:

Code: Select all

BASE   M/N/P   FEMININE
bifor  biforn  biforer
bin    binem   biner
bufen  bufem   bufer
at     atem    ater
imong  imom    imor
nej    nejm    ner
on     om      or
ojen   ojem    ojer
to     tom     tor
uf     ubem    uber
ufer   ufrem   ufrer 
uner   unrem   unrer
upen   upem    uper
uten   utem    uter
vure   vurem   vurer

Prepositions are usually grouped by the cases they govern. Here's a preliminary list, and how they are used.


DATIVE/ACCUSATIVE
at
* (dat) in the company of
* (dat) at
* (acc) (temporal) no later than
* (acc) no farther than

bifor
* (dat) ahead of
* (acc) to in front of

bin
* (dat) within (stationary)
* (acc) within (when movement confined to within is implied)

bufen
* (to) above

imong
* in(to) the midst of, among

nej
* (dat) in the vicinity of
* (acc) to the vicinity of

on
* in(to)/on(to)

ojen
* opposite
* facing

to
* (acc) at
* (dat) towards

uf
* (dat) off of, away from (stationary)
* (dat) (temporal, used with ym) from (ym nu ubem þri Daus "three days from now")
* (acc) (away) from

ufer
* (dat) on (a horizontal surface)
* (acc) across, over
* (acc) more than (somewhat archaic sounding)

uner
* below, under, beneath

upen
* (up) on(to) (a horizontal surface)

uten
* (from) outside of

vure
* in(to) the front of
* in the sight of

DATIVE
after
* (temporal) after, following
* according to

bi
* near
* in relation to

bitu
* between

dy
* because of

er
* (temporal) before, prior to

inen
* from within (when no motion is implied)

mid
* with

mino
* without, not having

neme
* except for

toins
* leaning/setting against
* in preparation for

vram
* by (expressing an agent in the passive voice)
* of/from (in the sense of showing material composition)
* from (Expresses a spacial source. Used with geographic features; similar to German's use of aus)

vur
* for the sake of
* generalized benefactive sense

ACCUSATIVE
jon
* (all) throughout
* mixed with

dur
* (passing) through

wiþ
* against
* in exchange for
* on (a vertical surface)
* per

wiþer
* back (towards)

ym
* (temporal) at a specific time or date
* for the purpose of (normally with supine)

ymuten
* surrounding

uþ
* (temporal) until
* (spatial) to the edge of

GENITIVE
stide
* instead of

anong along
* along

wane
* without, lacking, in want of

I know this is pretty sparse, but is anything really unclear? What needs the most work? Thanks in advance for any help!

[Bristel]

I like inflected prepositions. Very nice.

A few questions. Is wetnimot < witena gemōt?

Also, what types of phrases does the gnomic future appear in the modern language?

[Herra Ratatoskr]

Wetnimot does indeed derive from Witena gemot.

As for the gnomic future, it's... on it's way out. It's mainly found in things like the saying min Name beþ X "my name is X", in religious writings about God's eternal attributes, in very formal scientific writing about physical laws, and in certain aphorisms, such as Hunger beþ deo orbetste Sosse "Hunger is the best sauce."