Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4564
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » Wed 27 Dec 2017, 16:35

felipesnark wrote:
Wed 27 Dec 2017, 16:26
I'm thinking of making a change to certain Shonkasika neuter nouns, inspired by Slavic languages. There is an overlap in consonant stems and î-stems ( /ɪ/) in that they inflect the same for all forms, except the indefinite nominative singular, which is -î for î-stems and -∅ for consonant stems unless they end in a disallowed consonant cluster. In that case, I append an epenthetic -î, thus making them for all intents and purposes î-stems.

*dobr > dobrî roof, ceiling

Instead, I am thinking of placing the -î before the final consonants, acting a fill vowel as what happens in certain cases and numbers in some Slavic languages:

*dobr > dobîr
In forms with endings, like the accusative, the î would switch places:
acc. dobrîk

Yay or nay?
Definite Yea. I think the forms with the internal î much more attractive and interesting.
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » Wed 27 Dec 2017, 16:52

DesEsseintes wrote:
Wed 27 Dec 2017, 16:35
felipesnark wrote:
Wed 27 Dec 2017, 16:26
I'm thinking of making a change to certain Shonkasika neuter nouns, inspired by Slavic languages. There is an overlap in consonant stems and î-stems ( /ɪ/) in that they inflect the same for all forms, except the indefinite nominative singular, which is -î for î-stems and -∅ for consonant stems unless they end in a disallowed consonant cluster. In that case, I append an epenthetic -î, thus making them for all intents and purposes î-stems.

*dobr > dobrî roof, ceiling

Instead, I am thinking of placing the -î before the final consonants, acting a fill vowel as what happens in certain cases and numbers in some Slavic languages:

*dobr > dobîr
In forms with endings, like the accusative, the î would switch places:
acc. dobrîk

Yay or nay?
Definite Yea. I think the forms with the internal î much more attractive and interesting.
Thanks. That's the way I was leaning. The next thing I will have to consider is if I will restrict to type of final stem cluster...for example, obstruent + liquid like in that noun. I have another noun with a final cluster of liquid + obstruent: zelgî I might just leave that as a true î-stem. Not sure. Or I could go the route of zelîg, zelgîk.
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
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4564
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » Wed 27 Dec 2017, 17:34

felipesnark wrote:
Wed 27 Dec 2017, 16:52
DesEsseintes wrote:
Wed 27 Dec 2017, 16:35
felipesnark wrote:
Wed 27 Dec 2017, 16:26
I'm thinking of making a change to certain Shonkasika neuter nouns, inspired by Slavic languages. There is an overlap in consonant stems and î-stems ( /ɪ/) in that they inflect the same for all forms, except the indefinite nominative singular, which is -î for î-stems and -∅ for consonant stems unless they end in a disallowed consonant cluster. In that case, I append an epenthetic -î, thus making them for all intents and purposes î-stems.

*dobr > dobrî roof, ceiling

Instead, I am thinking of placing the -î before the final consonants, acting a fill vowel as what happens in certain cases and numbers in some Slavic languages:

*dobr > dobîr
In forms with endings, like the accusative, the î would switch places:
acc. dobrîk

Yay or nay?
Definite Yea. I think the forms with the internal î much more attractive and interesting.
Thanks. That's the way I was leaning. The next thing I will have to consider is if I will restrict to type of final stem cluster...for example, obstruent + liquid like in that noun. I have another noun with a final cluster of liquid + obstruent: zelgî I might just leave that as a true î-stem. Not sure. Or I could go the route of zelîg, zelgîk.
Seems like you’re letting the sonority hierarchy determine whether the î is inserted or appended which sounds like a very legit* way of doing it.

(*my my how Internetish has come to colour one’s language these days...)
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4322
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 » Tue 02 Jan 2018, 04:28

So, for a while I've been working on a language inspired by Southeast Asian languages, specifically the Kra-Dai family and Austroasiatic. It's strictly a protolang right now. So far I've called it SEAlang, after its inspirations (South East Asia), but it's true name is lalààg or Lullug. Should I 1) place it on Waxworld 2)place it in Mainland SEA or 3)make an island/archipelago for it in the South China Sea?
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9823
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Tue 02 Jan 2018, 05:30

qwed117 wrote:
Tue 02 Jan 2018, 04:28
So, for a while I've been working on a language inspired by Southeast Asian languages, specifically the Kra-Dai family and Austroasiatic. It's strictly a protolang right now. So far I've called it SEAlang, after its inspirations (South East Asia), but it's true name is lalààg or Lullug. Should I 1) place it on Waxworld 2)place it in Mainland SEA or 3)make an island/archipelago for it in the South China Sea?
I prefer options 2 or 3, definitely. Personally, I'd go with 3, because it sounds easier in terms of writing a history for these people, but if you're up for the challenge, there's nothing wrong with option 2.
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3823
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Thrice Xandvii » Tue 02 Jan 2018, 07:57

The invented island bit is kinda played out, IMO. I'd go with placing it in an existing place or smooshing it into a conlang.
Image
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6009
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 03 Jan 2018, 00:00

qwed117 wrote:
Tue 02 Jan 2018, 04:28
So, for a while I've been working on a language inspired by Southeast Asian languages, specifically the Kra-Dai family and Austroasiatic. It's strictly a protolang right now. So far I've called it SEAlang, after its inspirations (South East Asia), but it's true name is lalààg or Lullug. Should I 1) place it on Waxworld 2)place it in Mainland SEA or 3)make an island/archipelago for it in the South China Sea?
Whatever you do, that's what I'm in favor of.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6123
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 23:46

Yay or nay?
1) Should Onschen have an unmarked ergative case and marked absolutive? It's surrounded by languages with nom-acc alignment if that means anything.

2) Should Ngu Cam have different verbs depending on whether the subject is nominative or accusative?
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 00:04

1) I just learnt that they exist. I would say yay, but you should have a look at the examples in this 'paper'PDF first, especially examples (1) to (11).
2) I do not really know the details of your idea, but every implementation I can think of looks cool, so yay again.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6123
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 00:13

Creyeditor wrote:
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 00:04
2) I do not really know the details of your idea, but every implementation I can think of looks cool, so yay again.
No wait, I mean something like this:

It amounts to something like
I (nom) see1
I (nom) see2 him (acc)

Where see1 and see2 are different words.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2020
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by loglorn » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 03:14

Ahzoh wrote:
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 00:13
Creyeditor wrote:
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 00:04
2) I do not really know the details of your idea, but every implementation I can think of looks cool, so yay again.
No wait, I mean something like this:

It amounts to something like
I (nom) see1
I (nom) see2 him (acc)

Where see1 and see2 are different words.
Suppletion for transitivity. You want to do it for every or at least almost every verb?
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6123
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 04:16

almost every
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
esoanem
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2017, 13:03
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by esoanem » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 05:54

What about unstated implicit objects? Would those use the transitive or intransitive verb, or would you disallow such sentences by requiring an explicit object.

E.g. which (or what combination) of the following is/are acceptable

"did you see2 the dog"
"I did see1"

"did you see2 the dog"
"I did see2"

"did you see2 the dog"
"I did see2 it"
My pronouns are they/them/their

:gbr: native | :esp: advanced | :deu: intermediate | :fra: intermediate | :rus: basic | :ell: lapsed | :navi: lapsed | :con: making a bunch
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4564
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 06:25

I think it’s highly unlikely for “most or all” verbs that come in intransitive/transitive pairs to have suppletive forms because there are likely to be thousands of such verb pairs in any language, especially if you allow for normally transitive verbs like “to see” to become intransitive. However, I can see several different language scenarios where this wouldn’t be a problem:
a) Verbs are closed class. Here the number of actual inflected verbs is restricted so the load of memorising thousands of suppletive verb forms is lightened.
b) Transitive/Intransitive verb pairs are closed class. Most transitive verbs are rendered semantically intransitive/general by using a dummy object, so eat(intr.) is expressed by “eat food”, pay(intr.) is expressed by “pay money”, etc. and only a subset of transitive verbs has true intransitive counterparts.
c) The suppletive forms exist only for unaccusative verbs. So “I broke the glass” and “the glass broke” would be unrelated verbs. I think this is totally workable.

Those are just my thoughts.
User avatar
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 14:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Adarain » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 11:18

1) Marked absolutive is extremely rare to the point where it was for a long time believed to be virtually impossible. It doesn’t seem to bring with it any advantages either. Also bear in mind that there is a difference between a true marked absolutive (which makes ergative the default case and therefore the one used in, e.g. predicative clauses) and one where the absolutive simply happens to have more morphological material (akin to Icelandic’s “marked nominative”). The latter I would reckon to be perfectly fine, for the former I feel like you need a good justification.

2) If your idea is suppletion, then nay. But I would consider having strict transitivity for every (or almost every) verb, but ways to easily derive between the two. You could have almost only transitive verbs and then have both passive and antipassive voices for derivation; or you could have mostly intransitive verbs with all sorts valence-increasing operations… and of course a few suppletive pairs too, for more common verbs.
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6123
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 13:10

Adarain wrote:
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 11:18
1) Marked absolutive is extremely rare to the point where it was for a long time believed to be virtually impossible. It doesn’t seem to bring with it any advantages either. Also bear in mind that there is a difference between a true marked absolutive (which makes ergative the default case and therefore the one used in, e.g. predicative clauses) and one where the absolutive simply happens to have more morphological material (akin to Icelandic’s “marked nominative”). The latter I would reckon to be perfectly fine, for the former I feel like you need a good justification.
I have pronouns such as пипа, мих, and џо for which their absolutive forms are пипака, михка, and џока with a -ка suffixed to it. The adjectives and nouns however have overt marking for both the absolutive and ergative but the ergative is treated as the citation form.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2677
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 13:46

One place I can see a marked absolutive working is in a split-ergative system where animate nouns are default ergative due to their high level of agency while inanimates are unmarked for either case.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6123
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 14:09

I also have a sort of animacy hierarchy where humans > animate > inanimate.
One place I can see a marked absolutive working is in a split-ergative system where animate nouns are default ergative due to their high level of agency while inanimates are unmarked for either case.
How would the split-erg look?
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2677
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Thu 11 Jan 2018, 18:46

Ahzoh wrote:
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 14:09
I also have a sort of animacy hierarchy where humans > animate > inanimate.
One place I can see a marked absolutive working is in a split-ergative system where animate nouns are default ergative due to their high level of agency while inanimates are unmarked for either case.
How would the split-erg look?
Like so:

Code: Select all

    "person" "rock"
ERG kana     michi
ABS kanake   michi
kana toka michi
person break rock
The person breaks the rock

michi toka kanake
rock break person-ABS
The rock breaks the person

kanake suku
person-ABS sleep
The person sleeps

Maybe have the pronouns follow accusative alignment to add a further split:

noo toka michi
1s break rock
I break the rock

kana toka nama
person break 1s.ACC
The person breaks me

noo suku
1s sleep
I sleep
hoeroathlo
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon 13 Oct 2014, 14:38

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by hoeroathlo » Fri 12 Jan 2018, 19:47

A while back I was working on an experiment language not spoken by humans but rather by an alien species of some description that have can produce four tones through four individual orifices. this is as far as I got conceptualizing wise:

Code: Select all

                                                                        ≈         ¼ s    ½ s   1 s   1½ s
                                                                    40 Hz	 ˥-	 ˥	 ˥.	 ˥:
                                                                    80 Hz	 ˦-	 ˦	 ˦.	 ˦:
                                                                  160 Hz	 ˨-	 ˨	 ˨.	 ˨:
                                                                  320 Hz	 ˩-	 ˩	 ˩.	 ˩:

- The rows are referred to as tones
- The columns are the time intervals of the tones
- There can only be a single jump of tone e.g. ˥ to ˨ is allowed but ˥ to ˩ is not allowed
- Multiple tones can be said at once with three normally being the most.
- When one tone is said it’s called a single tone, two tones is a binary tone, and three a tertiary tone.
- Tones are said individually rather than as a continuous stream of sound. unless pronounced together in a binary or tertiary tone
- Brackets are used when more than one tone is being said at once e.g. (˥-˨)
- the individual tones can fluctuate higher or lower depending on the prior said tones (usually ten or so hertz) which are shown by ˦˥(down for 40) ˨˥(down for 80) ˩˨(down for 160) ˩˦(down 320) for a slight dip in tone, or ˥˦(up for 40) ˥˨(up for 80) ˨˩(up for 160) ˦˩(up for 320) and usual occurs with tone jumps e.g. (˥- ˨) ˩ ˦. (without tonal fluctuation) (˥- ˨) ˩ ˨˥. (with tonal fluctuation)


I never got any further than that because I couldn't think of a purpose for stacking tones or changes to tonal length in a way I wanted. I could use them as a way for marking tenses, or even mood, but I wanted it to be more fundamental and unique than that. (also the tones themselves are arbitrary and could change any time as well as their length)
Post Reply