The temple of Hercules in Amman, Jordan.

Source: Kiel Institut's Ukraine Support Tracker.

A larger, stronger Union, extended from Europe to Japan and other Pacific countries, could help democracies preventing aggression from autocracies.

Introduction

This post is about an idea I had. It's not a recent idea, nor (I think) a particularly good one; but I haven't make a lot of progress since then on this aspect, and I think it's interesting to see it to begin delving in some more difficult parts of the grammar.

The general idea

Leuth is a schematic language that, by employing regular endings, systematically clarifies/defines the quality of most words: noun, adjective, verb, adverb, with their case, number, tense, mood...

In languages there are several kinds of elements that can't easily be classified as "noun/adjective/verb/etc." in this way, yet in the language fabric work de facto in a way that can be attributed to those traditional categories. How would a language like Leuth deal with them?

I had the idea to create an ad hoc root, that would work like this: since we cannot easily attach an ending to "strange" elements to classify them, we attach it instead to the ad hoc root, that precedes the elements. The root takes the normal grammatical endings, and "classifies/defines" the grammatical quality of what's coming immediately after.

This could work for a variety of elements, hence the post title "A root for all seasons".

I wanted a swift root, giving us monosyllabic diphthongs. Lo• was a possibility, looking kinda like a Romance article (loa, loas, loe, loo, lous, etc.).

Title of books, films, etc.

Let's start with a simple example: "The Lord of the Rings". Using provisionally anul• for 'ring', the title could be translated as Jua de Anulas. It seems it could work pragmatically in the flow of speech like a normal expression: for "I enjoyed reading 'The Lord of the Rings'" you could think about:

>Me sukit legyi «Jua de Anulas».

You could derive adjective and adverbs easily by usual composition:

• anuljuo, anul•ju•o
• anuljue, anul•ju•e

>O anuljuesko holliwudo filma
o anul•ju•esk•o holliwud•o film•a
A "Lord of the Rings"-esque Hollywood film

But what if the title of the book/film is something more complex, like a clause/sentence? And/or what if we want to keep the literal shape of the title as-is, considering it like some sort of "crystallized" expression, for example in particularly formal contexts, like academic texts?

Let's imagine a sentence-title as "The Devil Wears Prada", very provisionally translated as Dyabola sevesten os Prada. We could say

• loe «Dyabola sevesten os Prada» | "The Devil Wears Prada"-ly [adverb]
• loo «Dyabola sevesten os Prada» | "The Devil Wears Prada"-ly [adjective]

When we're treating the title as a noun, loa formally introduces it:

>Magno sukcessa de loa «Dyabola sevesten os Prada».
The great success of "The Devil Wears Prada".

We can also pluralize easily, for instance when, like here, we're talking about the various installments of a series:

>Lous «Dyabola sevesten os Prada», publika viden dunya de moda law o stereotipo angula.
In "The Devil Wears Prada"-s, the public sees the world of fashion in a stereotypical angle.

Linking of clauses

The same logic would apply for whole clauses. Compare, for example, these two (maybe not very idiomatic) English sentences:

• I am sad when I have to return home.
• I understand when I have to return home.

In the first one, the "when" introduces a temporal indication: "In the moment of having to return home, I am sad". In the second, it rather introduces the object of the action of understanding: "I understand... what? ...When I have to return home". This semantic/syntactic difference could be represented in Leuth using lo•; translating literally the two sentences above:

• Me es tristo wandu keu me deben redwi garum.
• Me fahamen loa wandu keu me deben redwi garum.

Loa turns wandu keu... in a "noun", which is the object of me fahamen 'I understand'.

• Me fahamen loa { wandu keu me deben redwi garum }.

Foreign (unadapted) words and names

Examples with foreign words and names, when they're not accompanied by a "classifying" Leuth word:

>Taa es, kee francas diren, loo très chic !
That is, as the French say, très chic!

>Loas Niño e Niña es o pacifiko klimato fenomenas.
El Niño and La Niña are Pacific climate phenomena.

Metalinguistic elements

Same logic, when the metalinguistic element has no accompanying Leuth word (like "word", "term", "noun", "adjective", etc., as in anglo lexa dog 'the English word dog'):

>Loa canine, anglesu, deriven is Latinesa, is loa canis 'dog'.
Canine, in English, derives from Latin, from canis 'dog'.

Fast conclusion

In the case of titles, foreign words and metalinguistic elements used as nouns in the nominative, it's possible that the precision given by loa is excessive, and the language could work just fine by having the syntactic categories just "implied". In contexts requiring formality or precision, however, an element like lo• could be useful.

The linking of clauses seems to me a somewhat different matter, that requires more attention. I had a vague thought about this but I could not explore it yet (lack of time): using only the endings, kinda like in the a kea structure, so for example:

• Me fahamen a { wandu keu me deben redwi garum }.

Tell me your comments...

——————

You may have noticed this post is a bit "non-detailed" if compared to my previous ones. There would be a lot more to say on this matter, but, as I wrote here, I'm busy in this period (new job + just [self]published a book and having to promote it + other activities and duties), so, for the time being, Leuth is in a slower phase than at the beginning of the year. I've had various interesting thoughts about grammar elements and possible developments, though... but had not enough time to reflect on them. Be patient, as I am myself patient in my life... 🙏

[Post approved by the mods (rule #3)]

Hello everybody! So, I recently published a book on world federalism, and this is a post to advertise it. Here's an introduction.

The union of mankind in a global federation is a good and probably necessary goal, that I don't think needs advocating in this sub. But how do we realize that in practice? Once we have defined the goal, it seems abstract, far from the practical, concrete state of the world. How can we do concrete steps in that direction?

We have around 200 sovereign states in the world now. Many of them are divided by bitter enmity. It seems unlikely for all these countries to agree to form a federal world union at the same time. It seems more reasonable to begin with just some volunteering founder states, to create a core that other countries will join, one by one, when they feel ready.

Does this sound familiar? Yes, it's exactly what the European Union has been doing for almost a century, going from 6 founding states to 27 full members. Already 14 % of world countries! Plus a number of variously associated countries, "half-members".

I'm a European, I've always been interested in politics, and I've always been a strong Eurofederalist. A thing I noticed is that in the federalist field (Euro-federalist, but I think also world-federalist) the force of emotions beyond reason seems greatly overlooked. The federalist idea convinces reason, but it's often lacking on the side of emotions: it is often not liked, or it is even actively disliked, by great masses of people, for "emotional" reasons. Since we humans are rational but also very emotional creatures, this is not a fact that can be overlooked. If we really want to achieve this goal, not just talk about it at the reading club, we must think and act strategically.

The federalist/globalist idea often feels "disconnected from history", while the great majority of people like the idea of having "roots", having a history behind their back to look at, to inspire them with glorious deeds and a sense of shared past.

From a Euro-federalist POV, this yearning is particularly interesting. Because the most glorious thing we have in our shared past, that all Middle Ages looked back to, and that still amazes us for a number of good reasons after two millennia, is ancient Roman history. And the golden peak of the Roman Empire was, in fact, not an epoch of many fragmented opposed nationalisms, but something much more akin to the idea of a world-state of all nations. Athenaeus of Naucratis, a Greek-Egyptian author, wrote at the end of the second century:

>Rome may fairly be called the nation of the world. And he will not be far out who pronounces the city of the Romans an epitome of the whole earth; for in it you may see every other city arranged collectively, and many also separately; for instance, there you may see the golden city of the Alexandrians, the beautiful metropolis of Antioch, the surpassing beauty of Nicomedia; and besides all these that most glorious of all the cities which Jupiter has ever displayed, I mean Athens. And not only one day, but all the days in an entire year, would be too short for a man who should attempt to enumerate all the cities which might be enumerated as discernible in that uranopolis of the Romans, the city of Rome; so numerous are they.—For indeed some entire nations are settled there, as the Cappadocians, the Scythians, the people of Pontus, and many others. [...]

So, here comes the very interesting thing. The European Union is, as its name says, limited (in theory) to geographical Europe, with just little extensions here and there; and that is only a very small part of the world. But by putting an ideal of modern "Romanism" at its core, an ideal of peaceful grand order, progress and unity of humankind, it would logically be open for all countries to join, wherever they are in the world. So a "rebranded" EU, very similar to what we already have today, with just little changes to its structures could concretely initiate the political union of humankind. This is no minor thing, and needs to be explored in detail.

Of course this idea comes with various kinds of problems and shortcomings, that also need to be discussed. I do that in the book.

There would be many other things to say, but this is just an introduction, I don't want to write a monster-long post. For any questions, I'm here. ^ _ ^

————————

The book is available on Amazon, both as ebook (very inexpensive, code B0GZR47C8Q) and paperback. It is also available in Italian (La Repubblica romana, B0GX312KB4). I'm working to have it translated also in Spanish (I hope it arrives before the end of May), and maybe, after that, in Esperanto too...

————————

I don't want to spam other communities, so I created a dedicated subreddit, r/romrep, to discuss and develop this idea of "Romanism". I'll be posting news, excerpts from the book, funny jokes and various other contents. Feel free to join and contribute.

I hope you found this interesting! Thanks for reading this far.

A little-known fact is that the Italian poet Dante Alighieri, the world-renowned author of the Divine Comedy, was what in modern terms we may describe as a world federalist.

In his Latin treatise Monarchia, he argued that the best condition for the progress of humanity lies in a peaceful union of all kingdoms into a single jurisdiction.

Dante wishes for all the known world to be united in peace, with a set of common rules valid everywhere, and then special rules to allow the specificities of "nations, kingdoms and cities", from subsaharan Africa to Europe to the frozen wastes of northern Asia: in modern terms, pretty much a "world federation".

>[...] 5. Habent nanque nationes, regna et civitates intra se proprietates, quas legibus differentibus regulari oportet: est enim lex regula directiva vite. 6. Aliter quippe regulari oportet Scithas qui, extra septimum clima viventes et magnam dierum et noctium inequalitatem patientes, intolerabili quasi algore frigoris premuntur, et aliter Garamantes qui, sub equinoctiali habitantes et coequatam semper lucem diurnam noctis tenebris habentes, ob estus acris nimietatem vestimentis operiri non possunt. 7. Sed sic intelligendum est: ut humanum genus secundum sua comunia, que omnibus competunt, ab eo regatur et comuni regula gubernetur ad pacem. Quam quidem regulam sive legem particulares principes ab eo recipere debent, tanquam intellectus practicus ad conclusionem operativam recipit maiorem propositionem ab intellectu speculativo, et sub illa particularem, que proprie sua est, assummit et particulariter ad operationem concludit. [...]

>[5] For nations, kingdoms and cities have characteristics of their own, which need to be governed by different laws; for law is a rule which governs life. [6] Thus the Scythians, who live beyond the seventh zone and are exposed to nights and days of very unequal length, and who endure an almost unbearable intensity of cold, need to have one set of laws, while the Garamantes require different laws, since they live in the equatorial zone and always have days and nights of equal length, and because of the excessive heat of the air cannot bear to cover themselves with clothes. [7] It is rather to be understood in this sense, that mankind is to be ruled by him in those matters which are common to all men and of relevance to all, and is to be guided towards peace by a common law. This rule or law should be received from him by individual rulers, just as the practical intellect, in order to proceed to action, receives the major premiss from the theoretical intellect, and then derives the minor premiss appropriate to its own particular case, and then proceeds to the action in question.

In his medieval point of view, he imagines an "emperor" at the top of this polity, but for our days, in more modern terms, we may imagine in that place a democratically nominated government and parliament, similarly to what we find in the European Union.

Dante's treatise is particularly interesting in showing how the ideas of a brilliant mind remain intellectually relevant for the organization of mankind even after seven centuries.

Don’t forget to fly your flag! 🇪🇺 ^ _ ^

A little experiment: a rhyming sentence using a very provisional gya• 'go' root.

• orthography: Noe omnas bone gyaon, ma hola taon.
• phonemes: /no̍e o̍mnas bo̍ne ʤa̍on, ma ho̍la ta̍on/
• roots: no•e omn•as bon•e gya•on, ma hol•a ta•on.
  • noe = 'not'
  • omnas = 'all things'
  • bone = 'well'
  • gyaon = 'will go'
  • ma = 'but'
  • hola = 'the whole, all, the entirety'
  • taon = 'will do that'
• meaning: 'Not every thing will go well, but the [universe as a] whole will'. How would you translate it more idiomatically in English?

——————

Gya• would be an arbitrary hybrid between various languages:

• Indian: Bengali যাওয়া jaōẇa, Hindi जाना jānā, Nepali जानु jānu, Urdu جانا jānā...
• Germanic: English go, German gehen, Dutch gaan, Danish gå...
• Others: Korean: 가다 gada, Hungarian: jár, Mongolian: явах javax... short words with stressed -a- in several other languages.

——————

(The sentence is an invention of mine, it's not from the Dirk Gently series, but it resonates with the series feeling—at least for me).

The concept in brief. The world faces challenges similar to those of the past, as well as new challenges that entail great risks; indeed, the risk of humanity's self-destruction. The unification of human societies is a step that seems necessary for the common good, and we must begin to take concrete steps towards this goal.

The European Union embodies what we would like to see for the whole world: a democratic federal project, which aims to create a higher unity whilst preserving and protecting national identities, which are a source of richness and beauty. However, the EU has concrete problems: the federation is incomplete, and therefore dysfunctional, weak, and prey to external powers; it imposes upon itself a geographical limit that is too narrow, not even extending to the whole of 'cultural Europe'; it is weakened by an unattractive style that seems disconnected from history.

All these problems can be resolved by transforming the European Union into a new Roman Republic. In doing so, the ideal of supranational unity takes root in a glorious reality that speaks to the heart as well as the mind of man; it naturally opens itself up to all the nations of the planet, without losing its identity; it inspires, giving the strength to face this grand challenge; and, above all, it reminds us that the value of a society derives from the value of its citizens, calling for individual action.

The proposal is presented and discussed by Giulio Mainardi in his 2026 essay The Roman Republic, also available in Italian (La Repubblica romana), and soon in Spanish.

Dantist Jesse Pinkman

I played a bit with the new tool that was dropped in r/conlangs, translating some simple sentences.

These examples are a bit misleading in the fact that it seems Leuth almost always uses fewer letter than English to express the same concepts. But these are just some cases with particular words: in other cases English takes less space.

For word order in Leuth, see this post.

I wrote that I'm considering <gy> (we saw it briefly here in the comments) as a possible way to represent /ʤ/, without having necessarily a similarity with /ʧ/. Such similarities, in fact, are nice for the linguist or the schematic thinker, but not really relevant (in a language like Leuth) for the great mass of language users.

(By coincidence, <cs> for /ʧ/ is the "Hungarian solution", and Hungarian uses <gy> to represent not exactly /ʤ/ but the similar /ɟ/...)

A short recap:

Leuth adapts Latin words in a way that is generally similar to Esperanto, but tries to be more systematic/predictable (Esperanto sometimes is not), naturalistic, and (in a way) also faster. Among other things:

1. Leuth adapts Latin <g> always as /ʤ/ before <e>, <i> (and <y>, <ae>, <oe>) (while Esperanto uses mostly /g/, but also /ʤ/, unpredictably).
2. Leuth often^([1]) changes vocalic Latin <i> and <y> to consonantal /j/ where Esperanto retains vocalic value.

These two points give rise, in several words, to the somewhat awkward /ʤj/ cluster; which, in my opinion, doesn't sound very well, and also doesn't look very well however we represent /ʤ/, unless we use a diacritic:

.	good looking IMHO?
legxyona	❌
legsyona	❌
leḡyona	✅
legyyona	❌

I thought: what if in adapting from Latin we tweaked the rules to actually simplify this <gyy> /ʤj/ phonematically to <gy> /ʤ/?

Latin	Leuth (proposal)	pron.	meaning
legio -onis	legyona	/leʤo̍na/	legion
legionarius	legyonara	/leʤona̍ra/	legionary
legionella	legyonella	/leʤone̍lla/	legionella
regio -onis	regyona	/reʤo̍na/	region
spongia	spongya	/spo̍nʤa/	sponge
hygiene (?)	higyena	/hiʤe̍na/	hygiene
nostalgia	nostalgya	/nosta̍lʤa/	nostalgia
orgia	orgya	/o̍rʤa/	orgy
syzygia	sizigya	/sizi̍ʤa/	syzygy
Ortygia	Ortigya	/orti̍ʤa/	Ortygia
Pelagius	Pelagya	/pela̍ʤa/	Pelagius

Etcetera. This would affect also the various ^(Engl.)-logy (< ^(Lat.)-lōgia < ^(Gr.)-λογία) terms, when they are not disciplines (that would be remade as -•olog•ey•a) and are adapted, and would thus become -logyas (-logy•as).

For my personal bias this seems good, at least at a first impression, because it's similar to what happens in my native tongue, Italian^([2]); in various cases it's pretty similar, both phonetically and graphically, to English too.

It could be a compromise between having /ʤ/ and the languages that adapt this cluster as <gi> /gi/, /gj/ etc., being <gy> more similar to them, visually, than the previous <gx>, <gs> (<gxy>, <gsy>); e.g.:

• legyonara; German Legionär, Czech legionář, Estonian leegionär, Polish legionista, Finnish legioonalainen, etc.

/ʤj/ would anyway continue existing as a valid cluster; it would just be rarer.

A comparison with <gy> in general:

macrons	⟨cx⟩, ⟨gx⟩	⟨cs⟩, ⟨gs⟩	⟨cs⟩, ⟨gy⟩
c̄okolata, C̄ila, dac̄a, ḡawhara, haḡḡa, c̄akra, ḡena, anḡela, Ḡibraltara, exagḡeri, c̄echa, Niḡerya, sfinḡa, apac̄a, massaḡi, Ḡaypura, kec̄wa, Verḡilya, ponc̄a, taḡika, ḡaldu, ḡeba, c̄ikungunya, c̄adora	cxokolata, Cxila, dacxa, gxawhara, haggxa, cxakra, gxena, angxela, Gxibraltara, exag̈gxeri, cxecha, Nigxerya, sfingxa, apacxa, massagxi, Gxaypura, kecxwa, Vergxilya, poncxa, tagxika, gxaldu, cxikungunya, gxeba, cxadora	csokolata, Csila, dacsa, gsawhara, haggsa, csakra, gsena, angsela, Gsibraltara, exag̈gseri, csecha, Nigserya, sfingsa, apacsa, massagsi, Gsaypura, kecswa, Vergsilya, poncsa, tagsika, gsaldu, csikungunya, gseba, csadora	csokolata, Csila, dacsa, gyawhara, haggya, csakra, gyena, angyela, Gyibraltara, exag̈gyeri, csecha, Nigyerya, sfingya, apacsa, massagyi, Gyaypura, kecswa, Vergyilya, poncsa, tagyika, gyaldu, csikungunya, gyeba, csadora

(Orthography really has me overthinking...)

Aesthetically, this "/ʤj/ gyy to /ʤ/ gy" solution looks good graphically, since in various case it gives a nice faux-classical appearance to words. Hygiene, Ortygia, syzygia &gt; higyena, Ortigya, sizigya... these could easily look like real Graeco-Latin words to non-experts.

It's just an idea, a new one; I still have to reflect on it, experiment, see the downsides...

Anyway, <gy> for /ʤ/ could be a possibility even without this simplification, so keeping <gyy> /ʤj/.

What do you think?

————————————

[1] Exact rules for difficult cases are still to be defined.

[2] Roughly: of course various details differ.

Some country names.

(Current presence or absence on the map is not indicative of a preference on my part or something like that; it's just determined by:

• whether I already had (time to form) some thoughts about it or not;
• the easiness or difficulty of adapting/calqueing the country's name; and
• the size of the country.

On a bigger map, you could add many smaller European countries: Belgiya, Bulgariya, Cipra, Csechiya, Estoniya, Hungariya, Kroatiya, Malta, Slovakiya, Sloveniya, Vatikan[urb]a...)

Remember, all names may change.

And yes, this is going to r/MapsWithoutNZ (Newzelanda, Newzelandya?)...

Here I experimented with a new <gy> for /ʤ/, without symmetry with /ʧ/, that remained <cs>. I'm doing a post on this soon.

—————————

Let's translate the caption:

• orthography: Descas ar humo dunya 2026u
• phonemes: /de̍ʃas ar hu̍mo du̍nja dukildudekse̍su/
• roots: desc•as ar hum•o duny•a 2026•u
  • descas = 'countries'
  • ar = '[being part, member, component] of'
  • humo = 'human'
  • dunya = 'world'
  • 2026u = 'in 2026' [should this be written 2026-u, with a hyphen?]
• meaning: '[The] countries of [= making up] the human world in 2026'

—————————

Desc• comes from Indian languages: Bengali দেশ deś, Hindi देश deś, Kannada ದೇಶ dēśa, Sanskrit देश deśa, Urdu دیش deś, Telugu దేశము dēśamu, etc. (+ a vague resemblances with descendants of Latin pagensis: paese, pays, etc.).

I don't speak Chinese. I tried to study it self-taughtly years ago, but my Western weakling brain couldn't remember ideograms and struggled too much with pronunciation, so I couldn't get past the first beginner steps. There's one thing, however, that I remember well: how much pinyin seemed suboptimal to me, and how much this hindered my learning efforts.

I remember in particular the onsets. Chinese has a system of consonants that for most Westerners is alien and very difficult to master; at the same time, it's a beautifully symmetrical system, that could be adequately (even easily) represented by using a similarly symmetrical graphical Romanization. A straight-forward Romanization would help a lot for understanding and remembering the relations between phonemes. Pinyin, instead, uses some non-obvious choices and employs letters somewhat arbitrarily; making things, IMHO, needlessly difficult.

Some days ago for some reason I remembered this and produced a rough first-idea sketch for a reform.

The main points:

• Aspiration. Pinyin represents it by contrasting graphemes that in most Latin-script languages represent phonemes that contrast instead in voicedness-voicelessness (<p> vs <b>, <k> vs <g>); in some cases with not immediately clear choices (<z> vs <c>, <q> vs <j>). Understandable for the speakers of some Latin-script languages, but for the wider majority this seems anti-practical, misleading, needlessly difficult. My proposal: represent aspiration with the same symbol in all cases, for instance <h>.
• Simpler and wider recognizability. Pinyin uses <p>, <k>, <t> to represent /pʰ/, /kʰ/, /tʰ/. By itself, understandable. But Chinese has also /p/, /k/, /t/... and these are represented by <b>, <g>, <d>. You have /p/, /k/, /t/: just represent them with <p>, <k>, <t>, and use something else for /pʰ/, /kʰ/, /tʰ/.
• Affrication. Pinyin uses <c> and <z> to represent the affrication of <s> (not too bad), and similarly <ch> and <zh> to represent the affrication of <sh>, but then also <q> and <j> to represent the affrication of <x>... Too random. Let's keep things simple, and represent affrication always by the same symbol, e.g. <t>.

You can see the first idea table in the cover picture above (Reddit somehow doesn't let me upload it in the post).

Note that I followed the same general principle of pinyin: no diacritics or strange graphemes for consonant phonemes: just plain Latin letters or clusters of Latin letters.

Wouldn't a proposal like mine be clearer (for the great majority of Latin-script language speakers)?

Is it easy to understand/remember that in ^(P)<Xí Jìnpíng> the initial phoneme of the second word is just the affricate equivalent of the initial phoneme of the first word? Not at all, they seem just different letters with no clear relation. But it would be super-easy to understand if it was written <Xí Txìnphíng> instead.

Some other examples:

pinyin	this proposal
Běijīng	Pěitxīng
Guǎngzhōu	Kuǎngtcōu
Máo Zédōng	Máo Tsétōng
Kǒng Fūzǐ	Khǒng Fūtsǐ

A nice touch: note how the Romanization makes some famous names closer to their actual adaptation in many Latin-script languages, making languages feel closer, more related (Pěitxīng: Pequim, Pekín, Pékin, Pechino, Peking, etc.; Kuǎngtcōu, Cantão, Cantón, Canton, Kanton, Quảng Châu, etc.)

Tell me your thoughts...

———————————

EDIT. Some people in the comments say this proposal is too complicated. The table may appear frightening, but it actually requires the learner to learn just four super-simple things:

1. <x> = /ɕ/;
2. <c> = /ʂ/;
3. <h> after a consonant = aspiration;
4. <t> before a consonant = affrication.

The rest is just standard widespread use of Latin letters (<d> = /d/, <p> = /p/, etc.). A lot less complicated than current pinyin.

I wrote this post some months ago. I now think the idea here considered is not a good one. I think reasoning, looking for solutions, can be theoretically interesting even when not successful (and maybe somebody could adopt the idea for an artlang or something) so I share it anyway for your curiosity.

——————————————

In esperanto, /j/ is very frequent, being the grammatical mark of pluralization. Leuth doesn't use it in endings; but /j/ is anyway very frequent, and a lot more frequent inside roots, as Leuth turns many Latin /i/'s (and /y/'s) into /j/'s (therefore having often the stress in its original place), while Esperanto mostly keeps them as /i/'s (often moving the stress). Adapting from other languages, Esperanto often turns post-consonantal /j/'s to /i/'s.

Marking the stressed letter with bold:

Latin etc.	Esperanto	Leuth
Asia	Azio	Asya
Australia	Aŭstralio	Awstralya
ecclesia	eklezio	ekklesya
hodie	hodiaŭ	hodyu
imperium	imperio	imperya
Cartesius	Kartezio	Kartesya
Tokyo	Tokio	Tokya

As /j/ is such a frequent phoneme in Leuth, its graphical representation is important for the face of the language.

Using ⟨j⟩, Esperanto realizes a very good consistency with many Latin-script languages; many different sounds but all represented by ⟨j⟩:

• Esperanto: Johano
• Latin: Io(h)annes / Jo(h)annes
• English: John
• French: Jean
• Spanish: Juan
• Portuguese: João
• German: Johannes, Johann, Jan
• Polish: Jan, Janusz
• Finnish: Joni, Jouni, Juhana, Juhani, etc.
• other Germanic and Slavic languages, where ⟨j⟩ represents truly /j/

But, as we said, Esperanto pays the price of moving the stress, often turning diverse endings into repetitive litanies of -ío, -ío, -ía, -ía...

For Leuth the choice was not easy: for some words ⟨j⟩ looks better... in others ⟨y⟩ looks better... Trying to achieve a more "classical" face, in the end I though ⟨y⟩ looked better overall:

• Asya, Awstralya, hodyu, imperya, Kartesya, Tokya... instead of
• Asja, Awstralja, hodju, imperja, Kartesja, Tokja...

since post- and pre-consonantal ⟨y⟩ can be easily found in Latin (from Greek), while ⟨j⟩ (in modern orthography^([1])) can touch a consonant only following it and only in compound words with j- as the first letter of the second piece (e.g. interjectio)... so it's a lot rarer.

This choice is annoying for the fact that it removes the beautiful graphical consistency achieved by Esperanto. ... English John, French Jean, Spanish Juan, German Jan, etc. etc... but Leuth Yohanna. Not very naturalistic.

Some weeks ago I though: what about a hybrid solution? Have both ⟨j⟩ and ⟨y⟩ represent /j/, but in different positions: e.g.:

>⟨j⟩ at root beginning while ⟨y⟩ inside the root

or, more refinedly:

>⟨j⟩ when not touching a different consonant (in the same root), ⟨y⟩ when preceding or following a different consonant (in the same root).

Latin	⟨y⟩ Leuth	match?	⟨j⟩ Leuth	match?	Hybrid	match?
Libya	Libya	✅	Libja	❌	Libya	✅
hyaena	hyena	✅	hjena	❌	hyena	✅
procyon	procyona	✅	procjona	❌	procyona	✅
Cartesius	Kartesya	❌	Kartesja	❌	Kartesya	❌
Asia	Asya	❌	Asja	❌	Asya	❌
Io(h)annes / Jo(h)annes	Yohanna	❌	Johanna	✅	Johanna	✅
Iulius / Julius	Yulya	❌❌	Julja	✅❌	Julya	✅❌
iustus / justus	yusto	❌	justo	✅	justo	✅
Iesus / Jesus	Yesua^([2])	❌	Jesua	✅	Jesua	✅
iasminum / jasminum	yasmina	❌	jasmina	✅	jasmina	✅

With such a rule, an "other consonant + ⟨j⟩" or "⟨j⟩ + other consonant" sequence would become a mark of composition, like today ⟨ks⟩ and ⟨kw⟩. For example, hekjanna 'century' would have only one possible division in roots: hek•jann•a, being *hekj•ann•a impossible, while today hekyanna could be both hek•yann•a and *heky•ann•a^([3]). Symmetrically, we'd know that procyona 'raccoon' is not *proc•yon•a, because ⟨cy⟩, like ⟨qu⟩, couldn't exist across root boundary.

(If such a possibility was chosen, /ʒ/ —today represented by ⟨j⟩— would need a new representation, but that is not too important as it's a rarer phoneme).

Would it be worth it? Or would the frequent alternation between ⟨j⟩ and ⟨y⟩ just be confusing, and in the end not even pleasant for the eye? Single words look good, but omno scejas dunyu not really... It seems confusing without seeming a lot more beautiful in exchange.

————————

[1] ⟨j⟩ as a different letter from ⟨i⟩ was invented during the Renaissance.

[2] Like in Esperanto, a somewhat irregular derivation for a particular name. Could change.

[3] Heky• and ann• don't exist as roots right now, but are fully possible theoretically.

How to express the concept of groups of elements relatively only to their number? Like, in English,

• couple 'group of two elements',
• dozen 'group of twelve elements',
• score 'group of twenty elements, etc.

At first I thought about having a specific root; something fast, for example i•:

• duia (du•i•a) 'couple'
• dekduia (dek•du•i•a) 'dozen'
• dudekia (du•dek•i•a) 'score'

but then I realized... since the numeric roots act like multiplying prefixes, we don't need a "specific root to interact with numbers to define groups this way", we just want to multiply a generic element... and we already have a root for that: uy• (≈ Esp. ul•)!

So, just like we have

• dudia (du•di•a) 'period of two days = couple of days'
• dekduyanna (dek•du•yann•a) 'period of twelve years = dozen of years'

we'd have:

• duuya (du•uy•a) 'couple of elements = couple'
• dekduuya (dek•du•uy•a) 'dozen of elements = dozen'

etc. (Could this work?).

...But then...

Thinking further, there are, anyway, cases where, for specificity and naturalism, some root of that kind would be nice. In an interesting schematic development, we'd also have, by backformation^([1]), a root for the single element, not existing in source languages. E.g., in music:

• duet &gt; dutetta (du•tett•a)
• quartet &gt; quartetta (quar•tett•a)
• quintet &gt; quintetta (quin•tett•a)
• sextet &gt; sestetta (ses•tett•a)
• septet &gt; septetta (sep•tett•a)

etc.; so, tetta^([2]) alone would mean '[mainly classical] musician [performing]'?

(Quartet, quintet etc. with the meaning of 'composition for a quartet, quintet, etc.' could be quartettaja, quintettaja, etc., -•tett•aj•a; aj• ≈ Esp. aĵ•).

Or:

• monologue &gt; unaloga^([3]) (un•alog•a)
• dialogue &gt; dualoga (du•alog•a)
• trialogue, trilogue &gt; trialoga (tri•alog•a)

Could aloga mean something by itself?

Somebody could ask whether we need specific roots of this kind. We don't need them: clearly we could call a quartet a "quaruya ek musicians" or even, just with the same logic as above, a "quar-musician". But since these words are international, well extended beyond the core of Graeco-Latin-dom, having some little redundancy for naturalism (and nuances) doesn't seem too bad.

There are various terms of this kind (number-groups) in languages, that, while being synonymous, subsequently specialize their meaning. In Italian, for 'group of three elements', we have trio, terzetto, triade, terna, terno, trinità, trittico (and also terzina, tripletta, etc.)... all with different nuances. Even in Esperanto we find par•o, triad•o, and kvartet•o, kvintet•o, septet•o (could have just created *tet•... well, still could), etc...

Could we have also a root for 'couple' like par• in Esperanto, maybe that can be extended to other numbers, to indicate not just a group of 'multiple elements' loosely, but rather explicitly with some kind of union/link between them? Ad•? Duada, triada, like English dyad, triad (from Latin, itself from Greek)? (Just an idea on the fly.)

(...And we also have ar•... 🤔).

Further thoughts...

In natural languages, number prefixes don't always have exactly a multiplying value. They do in terms like

• Lat. triennium = period of three years (≈ Leuth triyanna)
• Lat. triduum = period of three days (≈ Leuth tridia)

and kilometre, hectolitre, bifocal, trisyllabic, etc.

but on the contrary, for example, Spanish tetracampeón (tetra- '4-', campeón 'champion') is not a '[group of] four champions' but rather a 'four-times champion': so in Leuth usually we'll say that by adding the root for 'time': quar{time}{champion}.

Would it be understandable anyway if, in this or other cases, we omitted the "middle root", therefore having a number-something term that does not mean 'a number of somethings'? Probably in some cases it could be pragmatically useful, for swiftness. Maybe, instead of removing the middle root completely, we could satisfy swiftness by using in its place the i preposition (≈ Esp. je): quari{champion}...^([4])

And what about a term like quaritha (quar•ith•a; itha = 'quality, character, -ness, -ity')? Should it mean 'quality of being four' or 'a group of four qualities'?

———————————

Notes

[1] Well... nothing strange for Leuth. But matching schematism and naturalism with the right choices is always pleasant.

[2] Italians, don't laugh.

[3] Should we change un• to mon•? Maybe we should have both for naturalism...

[4] Is it a coincidence that -i- is the most frequent "compounding vowel" in Latin? Of course it isn't... We love backformation here. B-)