OpenGeofiction
This post is for native Spanish speakers.
I’m currently working on Castellabájo (Xʌшtaııʌҕʎɔo), a language based on Castellanese for San Basílio state in Unesia. Spanish is not my first language, so I’m not sure how it would seem to a native speaker.
I’m currently deciding between two different historical narratives as to how the language and script developed. Knowing how close or how far the language is from the original will help me determine which story I’ll go with.
What are your thoughts, based on what I’ve mapped [here] (https://opengeofiction.net/#map=14/-31.5302/165.7941)?
Are you able to decipher the transliterations? Are the contracted words potentially confusing? Aside from the written script, would you consider this to be a separate language or a dialect?
Gracias!
Discussion
Comment from Luciano on 2 March 2019 at 05:32
Ҧʌɹaшa ƣʎш uŋ xóbıӿo aӄtɹʌῆo xa ŋı ıbюƣʌ ŋı bиɤaxto. Ɔʌɹʎш ƣaxoɹ xoŋ ʌɤӿo xoƣo aɤ ƣoзʎɹʌҕa.
Comment from UN1TY on 2 March 2019 at 12:23
@Luciano - You figured out the script easily enough, ha ha, even though most of the letters are from unrelated languages and aren’t pronounced phonetically according to their origins.
I initially had the idea of the San Basilian people originating from the Burgo San Hugo region of Ainciria. They were followers of a Mormon-like sect whose views were not appreciated by the locals. The purpose of the the strange script was so they could secretly communicate with each other. Eventually they migrated over the mountains along Ainciria’s border in search of a place to practice their religion freely. They kept the script as a symbol of their unique cultural heritage even though it was no longer needed. Over time, they would incorporate influences from the local tribal languages, which often contracted and consolidated adjectives and nouns into one word. So instead of saying “fortaleza hexagonal”, San Basilians would shorten it to “fortezágona”.
Comment from Luciano on 2 March 2019 at 16:00
A “just so” story… but reality can be weird, too.
Are you aware the actual Mormons had a secret script for writing English, almost exactly as you describe? It’s called Deseret Alphabet. There have even been efforts to revive it, to apply it to native American languages such as Hopi, and it has been incorporated into unicode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_alphabet
Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 2 March 2019 at 17:09
ɤıӿa ɤuxıʌŋo шʌııш, tӿa aʌшıaшt ӿʌıı to ƣʌӿa ıt ҔaɤıaвʌҔɤa ƣıxӿt Ҕa to Ҕʌшa tӿa ɤʌŋxuʌxa oŋ ʌ ɹaʌɤ ɤʌŋxuʌxa. Tӿa шxɹıҧt ɤooӿшӿood oŋ tӿa ƣʌp. ııou xouɤd ʌdd ‘ŋʌƣa:aŋ’ tʌxш - tӿıш dıшҧɤʌııш tӿa aŋxɤıшӿ ŋʌƣa ӿӿaŋ шaɤaxtad.
So, as you realise, you probably don’t have enough letters for english. There are some confusing overlaps with spanish phonetics, whatever the dialect or language is these may still be there. For example, do ‘g’ and ‘j’ sound the same? ‘c’ and ‘qu’? And if so, why are there two letters in the original? The transliterations are quite easy - perhaps too easy?
The word contractions add interest I think.
Comment from Luciano on 2 March 2019 at 17:19
@Udi - it’s a phonemic substitution code rather than an orthographic code (emphasis on CODE i.e. cipher). Thus when “c” and “qu” have the value /k/, they share a symbol “x”. When “c”, “z” and “s” have the value /s/ (and thus assuming an Andalusian or Latin American variant of Spanish), they share a different symbol “ш”. In any event it’s much easier, then, for Spanish than English, since the English phonemic inventory is quite a bit larger than the Spanish phonemic inventory. It’s partly why English spelling is so challenging - we try to cram 50+ phonemes into our Latin alphabet of 26 letters. The Spanish inventory is a closer match to the original Latin (which makes sense, in historical linguistic terms).
Comment from superleaf1995 on 2 March 2019 at 17:56
Spanish = Arabic+French+Latin+Greek
Comment from UN1TY on 3 March 2019 at 08:43
@ Udi - I was hoping that the word contractions would enliven the language a bit. Thanks.
@Luciano - The parallels between Deseret and Castellabajo are coincidental, but uncannily similar. Thanks for sharing that.