Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Omzinesý
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2356
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 16:01

Ælfwine wrote:
Mon 05 Mar 2018, 11:00
I'm simulating a lot of different vowel changes for Pelsodian:

/i i: u u:/ > /ɪ i: ʊ u:/ > /e i ɯ u/ > /e i ɨ u/ > /e i y u/
/e e: o o:/ > /ɛ e: ɔ o:/ > /ɛ e ɤ o/ > /ɛ e ɵ? o/ > /e e ø o/
/a a:/ > /ɐ a:/ > /ɒ a/ > /o a/ > /o a/

Essentially I want to go from the Vulgar Latin system to something very Hungarianesque, with front rounded vowels and perhaps a distinction in vowel length. However I believe in the stages between I would gain /ɯ/ due to influence from Old Hungarian (which also had the vowel) and the languages of the Pannonian Avars. I don't know how realistic the above changes are though. Yay or nay?
So is there some aesthetic goal for rounded back vowels to become unrounded before becoming rounded front vowels?
It seems that hungarian rounded front vowels developed from unrounded front vowels rounding quite sporadically.
When did Hunagarian have /ɯ/? Do you mean the non-low unrounded back vowel of Proto-Uralic?
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 20:06

Omzinesý wrote:
Mon 05 Mar 2018, 16:01
Ælfwine wrote:
Mon 05 Mar 2018, 11:00
I'm simulating a lot of different vowel changes for Pelsodian:

/i i: u u:/ > /ɪ i: ʊ u:/ > /e i ɯ u/ > /e i ɨ u/ > /e i y u/
/e e: o o:/ > /ɛ e: ɔ o:/ > /ɛ e ɤ o/ > /ɛ e ɵ? o/ > /e e ø o/
/a a:/ > /ɐ a:/ > /ɒ a/ > /o a/ > /o a/

Essentially I want to go from the Vulgar Latin system to something very Hungarianesque, with front rounded vowels and perhaps a distinction in vowel length. However I believe in the stages between I would gain /ɯ/ due to influence from Old Hungarian (which also had the vowel) and the languages of the Pannonian Avars. I don't know how realistic the above changes are though. Yay or nay?
So is there some aesthetic goal for rounded back vowels to become unrounded before becoming rounded front vowels?
It seems that hungarian rounded front vowels developed from unrounded front vowels rounding quite sporadically.
When did Hunagarian have /ɯ/? Do you mean the non-low unrounded back vowel of Proto-Uralic?
Old Hungarian had /ɯ/, probably from Proto-Uralic. By Middle Hungarian it fronted to /i/. Frathwiki.

I imagine during the arrival of the Magyars to the Pannonian plain, the romance speakers would already be familiar with /ɯ/, if we believe that the language of the Avars was a Turkish one. I'm trying to think of a believable way for the Romance vowels to develop under these influences, perhaps u -> ɯ (and later -> i or y) in stressed syllables as part of a greater chain shift.
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 12:53

I’m changing Shonksika verb negation (ditching the negative verb). For background, Shonkasika is typically SOV (although flexible) and tends to be, though not exclusively, head-final.

laidos he eats

Option 1: negative prefix

velaidos he doesn’t eat

Option 2: postverbal particle

laidos vek he doesn’t eat

Option 3: use option 1, with an optional postverbal particle for emphasis

velaidos vek he doesn’t eat
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1631
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gestaltist » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 14:20

felipesnark wrote:
Tue 06 Mar 2018, 12:53
I’m changing Shonksika verb negation (ditching the negative verb). For background, Shonkasika is typically SOV (although flexible) and tends to be, though not exclusively, head-final.

laidos he eats

Option 1: negative prefix

velaidos he doesn’t eat

Option 2: postverbal particle

laidos vek he doesn’t eat

Option 3: use option 1, with an optional postverbal particle for emphasis

velaidos vek he doesn’t eat
I vote Option 4: use Option 2 but allow Option 3 for emphasis.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 15:32

I would personally go with Option 3.
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 16:25

shimobaatar wrote:
Tue 06 Mar 2018, 15:32
I would personally go with Option 3.
I’m leaning this way, though perhaps with a preverbal particle instead of a prefix:

ve laidos (vek)

I should perhaps add that other postverbal particles exist for some modal, evidential, and emphatic uses.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!
User avatar
kiwikami
mind
mind
Posts: 1300
Joined: Sat 26 May 2012, 16:24
Location: the first star to the right and straight on 'till mid-afternoon

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by kiwikami » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 21:48

Alál is now round about four years old, and while I love its consonant inventory, there are some changes I'm considering.

The oddball click-and-/q/ trio /ǀ~ᵑǀ~ǀʰ !~ᵑ!~!ʰ ɴq~ɴ~ǂʰ/ is fun, but I'm considering replacing them (mostly) with ejectives corresponding to the other POAs (since they don't quite match up right now). This would produce /t̪ʼ ʈʼ kʼ/ and a slew of allophones. Though it's perhaps not naturalistic (my excuse would be, as always, ~aliens~) I'd rather like to keep the intervocalic nasalization, giving V_V /ⁿt̪ʼ ᶯʈʼ ᵑkʼ/. Alternatively, /t̪ʼ ʈʼ ɴqʼ/, with intervocalic /ⁿt̪ʼ ᶯʈʼ ɴ/. Also considering some other things:

1. [velar] > [uvular] /_[V+back] (giving us back good old ɴq in some environments, if I go with the /ⁿt̪ʼ ᶯʈʼ ᵑkʼ/ plan)
2. V[+high,stressed] > [semivowel] / _V
3. V[+low,stressed] > [semivowel] / _V

(2) and (3) are a new part of the height/stress mess that has developed from the historical tone system, giving the once-three-now-maybe-six-vowel system some interesting variety. The number of phonemic vowels is complex as you can still analyze mid vowels as the allophones of high vowels in either non-initial unstressed positions or stressed positions where there was once a low tone.
 i~e~ɛ~j u~o~ɔ~w
   æ~ɑ~ɜ~ʕ̞

If I makes the clicks ejectives, then the affricates will also become ejective forms, with the contrasting stop+fricative clusters becoming the pulmonic affricates. Among other things, this extends the list of possible roots by a bit. How do people feel about the ejective switch, in general? I like /tʼ ʈʼ ɴqʼ/, because I like the uvular just sort of being there, especially as the language otherwise has no nasals - but /kʼ/ is the most common ejective, so I'm probably going to go with /t̪ʼ ʈʼ kʼ/ with (1) and V_V nasalization. Where did the nasals come from? No idea. It's technically intervocalic lenition, since nasals are more sonorous. Thoughts? Suggestions?

The consonant inventory would become:

/t̪ ʈ k~q/
/t̪ʼ~ⁿt̪ʼ ʈʼ~ᶯʈʼ kʼ~ᵑkʼ~qʼ~ɴqʼ/
/s̪ ʂ~ʃ ɬ ç x~χ/
/t̪͡s̪ ʈ͡ʂ t͡ɬ/
/t̪͡s̪ʼ ʈ͡ʂʼ t͡ɬʼ/
/ɾ~ɺ~ɻ/
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Davush » Fri 09 Mar 2018, 13:14

Been a while since I did any conlanging. Was just having a look over my Qutrussan notes and I'm increasingly unhappy with the phonemic schwa and its orthography. While the /a i u ə/~/aː iː uː eː oː/ asymmetry is nice, I really don't like stressed schwa and <ă ĭ ŭ> don't seem to fit well with the rest of the orthography and produce ugly looking words, especially when stressed.

Should I ditch schwa, and have a more conventional /a i u ɛ o/~/aː iː uː eː oː/ system where also /ɛ ɔ/ function as 'ultra short' forms of /i u/ due to reduction rules (and perhaps can be realised as schwa when unstressed)?


năn cúcŭr /nən kuːkər/ > nan cúcor /nan kuːkɔr/
sĭqqĭra ógŭddah /səqqəra oːgəddaɦ/ > seqqera ógoddah /sɛqqɛra oːgɔddaɦ/ > /ˈsɛqqəra ˈoːgəddaɦ/
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1631
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gestaltist » Fri 09 Mar 2018, 23:29

Davush wrote:
Fri 09 Mar 2018, 13:14
Been a while since I did any conlanging. Was just having a look over my Qutrussan notes and I'm increasingly unhappy with the phonemic schwa and its orthography. While the /a i u ə/~/aː iː uː eː oː/ asymmetry is nice, I really don't like stressed schwa and <ă ĭ ŭ> don't seem to fit well with the rest of the orthography and produce ugly looking words, especially when stressed.

Should I ditch schwa, and have a more conventional /a i u ɛ o/~/aː iː uː eː oː/ system where also /ɛ ɔ/ function as 'ultra short' forms of /i u/ due to reduction rules (and perhaps can be realised as schwa when unstressed)?


năn cúcŭr /nən kuːkər/ > nan cúcor /nan kuːkɔr/
sĭqqĭra ógŭddah /səqqəra oːgəddaɦ/ > seqqera ógoddah /sɛqqɛra oːgɔddaɦ/ > /ˈsɛqqəra ˈoːgəddaɦ/
Hey Davush. Glad to see you around again. I prefer the versions with the schwa, to be honest.
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Davush » Sat 10 Mar 2018, 10:31

gestaltist wrote:
Fri 09 Mar 2018, 23:29

Hey Davush. Glad to see you around again. I prefer the versions with the schwa, to be honest.
Thanks gestaltist! Unfortunately real life has annoying way of getting in the way of creative pursuits...hopefully I will be able to be more active soon though.
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue 28 Jul 2015, 17:43

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by ixals » Sat 10 Mar 2018, 15:34

I agree with gestaltist, I really like the schwa in Qutrussan.
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :fra:, :por:, :pol:

Цiски a Central Slavic conlang
Noattȯč a future German conlang [on hold]
Tungōnis Vīdīnōs Proto-Germanic goes Romance [on hold]
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Sat 10 Mar 2018, 16:15

I too agree with the schwa, but I'm slightly confused as to what the motivation for the three different romanisations <ă ĭ ŭ> are for?
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat 10 Jan 2015, 14:10

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Davush » Sat 10 Mar 2018, 17:17

Frislander wrote:
Sat 10 Mar 2018, 16:15
I too agree with the schwa, but I'm slightly confused as to what the motivation for the three different romanisations <ă ĭ ŭ> are for?
The orthography represents a slightly earlier stage of the language and so has some relics. Schwa historically derives from a merger of older /ɛ ɔ/ plus reduction of /a i u/ in certain forms (and the variety just looks better I think).
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 03:34

Should my conlang use reflexive and reciprocal pronouns or stick with verbal prefixes?
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 12:28

Ahzoh wrote:
Sat 31 Mar 2018, 03:34
Should my conlang use reflexive and reciprocal pronouns or stick with verbal prefixes?
Well there are some interesting things you can do with reflexives to do with using them across cause boundaries, for example perhaps to do with logophoricity, like "John said himself killed his uncle" vs. "John said he (i.e. someone else) killed his uncle" (I don't know if this is attested but I can imagine a language working like this). On the other hand using verbal prefixes for everything is cool beans, and woud be perfectly cool too, since in those language which do use affixal strategies for reflexives/reciprocals, they function as valency-reducing voices in the same vein as passives and antipassives.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 16:39

Frislander wrote:
Sat 31 Mar 2018, 12:28
Ahzoh wrote:
Sat 31 Mar 2018, 03:34
Should my conlang use reflexive and reciprocal pronouns or stick with verbal prefixes?
Well there are some interesting things you can do with reflexives to do with using them across cause boundaries, for example perhaps to do with logophoricity, like "John said himself killed his uncle" vs. "John said he (i.e. someone else) killed his uncle" (I don't know if this is attested but I can imagine a language working like this). On the other hand using verbal prefixes for everything is cool beans, and woud be perfectly cool too, since in those language which do use affixal strategies for reflexives/reciprocals, they function as valency-reducing voices in the same vein as passives and antipassives.
Problem with reflexive/reciprocal verbal prefix thing is that it would be a very Semitic thing to do--especially as prefixes and having morphemes for both--which is something I try to reduce in my conlang. Though there are lots of languages with reflexive and reciprocal verbal affixes.

But on the other hand, having reflexive and reciprocal pronouns is also a very English and SAE thing to do as well.

Although I like the idea of reflexive as indicator of logophoricity, I might have a reflexive pronoun as a relic in this regard.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 15:16

Ahzoh wrote:
Sat 31 Mar 2018, 03:34
Should my conlang use reflexive and reciprocal pronouns or stick with verbal prefixes?
Why not both? Perhaps the verbal prefixes are mandatory, but the pronouns are used for emphasis or in special situations or phrases that don't have verb? Or in a different clause?
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 19:57

felipesnark wrote:
Sun 01 Apr 2018, 15:16
Ahzoh wrote:
Sat 31 Mar 2018, 03:34
Should my conlang use reflexive and reciprocal pronouns or stick with verbal prefixes?
Why not both? Perhaps the verbal prefixes are mandatory, but the pronouns are used for emphasis or in special situations or phrases that don't have verb? Or in a different clause?
The verbal prefixes would come from the pronouns being grammaticalized.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Dormouse559 » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 23:02

Ahzoh wrote:
Sun 01 Apr 2018, 19:57
The verbal prefixes would come from the pronouns being grammaticalized.
That shouldn't be a barrier. The Romance languages formed both independent pronouns and clitics from the same stock of Latin pronouns.
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 01:18

Hey guys. So I am changing the name of my Romlang, Pelsodian, to Castellian, based around the fact that many nearby Dalmatian languages also take their name from the city they are from. such as Ragusean from Ragusa. (In my example, it is from the modern Hungarian city of Keszthely, which would be from <CASTELLUM.) My only worry is that it becomes too close to the name "Castilian." This is formed from the same suffix -ianu in Vulgar Latin, so I thought about using another suffix, like -icu (Castellic) or -esis (Castellese), or perhaps another suffix if you guys know any. What do you think is the best choice?
Post Reply