There are a few fundamental misunderstandings here, methinks. The timeframe of this mod starts at least a thousand years after whatever happened happened, at least to the best of my understanding. Almost all corruptions that you are offering would be best suited for an evolution of the language along current paths for, maybe, a few hundred years. The important part of that was "along current paths." With the end of the entire world, things are going to go a lot differently than they would with the mediating presence of newspapers, the internet, widely published books, etc. on the language. So while Bolivar might corrupt to Bolivaria or Bolivia in modern Spanish, the evolution of the language over 1000 years wouldn't necessarily lead to the same form. In this case, it's not so much a direct corruption of Bolivar that leads to the kingdom name as much as it is the rise of the Boliv family, the name of which is a corruption by the dropping of the last syllable.
In the first post says "The mod would start around 370 Union Date or Years since the foundation of the United States [HRE].". That's 2146 aC.
The point is that Spanish doesn't corrupt by dropping syllables. Spanish does the contrary and usually adds more syllables. And this does not only for "modern Spanish" but all-times Spanish.
In fact, I just realized that Boliv fits with the corruption of Bolivar in Russia. Boliv sound very Russian.
This is an instance where I though a corruption would only serve to confuse more than anything else.
In fact, it's one of the corruptions who makes more sense. In Spanish Yanos and Llanos sound equal. BTW, no personal name in Spanish start with LL.
Actually, it does. Not perfectly, but it does fit. I'm working from reference maps, and about 3/4 of the Kingdom is within the bounds of the department.
I compared the map you posted with an actual map I didn't see that, but it doesn't mind.
Not exactly. They have strong ties to the past, but it is very much the city itself that is the important part, and what the Kingdom grew around.
I assume you're using this idea for the whole America, right? So, no kingdoms based on US States and things like that.
See my point above regarding Bolivar-->Boliv. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that, over 1000 years, the name would corrupt a bit more than that. I'm not denying that your suggestions might fit better in the short term, but I think the corruption fits. Basically, the final syllable is softened, from a hard "a" to a softer "ya." The conflict between the last two syllables (een-ya) leads to the eventual flipping of the vowels, making the final bit of the word "del-an-ya." Yes, it doesn't exactly match the word as it modernly appears, but it's a plausible corruption for a 1000 year time frame.
Magdia fits in a some-centuries/millennium corruption.
YA, is not more softer than A, it's a different sound. Think that Spanish A is softer than English A.
And I don't see any conflict with the last two syllables. In fact, Magdalenia sounds better than Magdelania.
The ICA instead of IKA is purely a result of other changes in the language and an increased prevalence of the latter 'k' that makes it better fit in with the rest of the changes. I was also imprecise in my description of the changes. It's not so much "ier" as it is "ee-ya."
So, totally arbitrary. Did I mention that the overuse of K is quite annoying for the Spanish-speaking people?
This is more following the "ee-ya" rule than the making words harder rule.
Rule that seems to be right only in English.
Yes, the change from "a" to "y" is somewhat arbitrary, but I stand by it as a prime example of the corruptions towards "ee-ya." Also, the 'G' to 'K' is another common corruption rule.
Again, I think this is pure English.
The change from A to Y simply destroys the vocal system of Spanish. Both A an Y had completely different sounds. And that about the corruption of G to K makes no sense for my. Perhaps in English is common. In Spanish definitely not.
Once again, these suggested changes are strictly within the range of modern changes. It's also not a direct copy of the word for seaman, it's a name for an entire culture, so it would follow a different evolutionary path than marinero. There's also the influence of changes in other words on yet other words. For example, many other words evolved to contain the letter 'y' which would influence the spelling of yet other words, especially in situations without a unified dictionary
No. These changes are logical even two millenniums after today.
The nature of the name has no influence in the evolution of the name, so the evolutionary path will be the same. Pick the Llanero (Plural Llaneros) as example, which evolved from the word Llano. As you see both the original word and the new one are almost identical, since they keep the same root (Llan-). And pay attention that this word, Llanero, is 400 years old and it didn't changed despite nearly half millennium.
And I repeat, since Y and I sound equal, this corruption is pure aesthetic and serves to the only purpose of making the word more alien.
Huh. My earlier notes have the 's' on the end, but it disappeared about halfway through. I think it was supposed to turn into Ya Pasifika, but I forgot to remove the 's' from the Yas.
Singular and femenine? Why? It makes little sense to me. If this name evolved from a nickname used to describe the people, then it must be plural and masculine. They will be called "los pacíficos" as we say, for example, "los mediterráneos" (The Mediterranean) or "los llaneros".
Despite the S, Ya Pasifika still sounds like a isolated native Amazonian tribe, which I thought they were before reading anything more than the name. And since a contemporary Spanish can read early medieval Spanish and understand most of it (and even understand a lot of words of Latin despite never learned it), the point that I, as native Spanish speaker, was unable to relate Yas Pasifika to the Pacific Ocean it's a significant clue that you are miscorrupting the name.
BTW, a good corruption here would be to unite the two words in one. That's very common.
