Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4277
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 22:39

eldin raigmore wrote:
LinguoFranco wrote:I have an idea for a language that uses suffixes for inflections and prefixes for derivational morphology. One issue that I am having so far is that it can get hysterically redundant. For example, "vuti" means to eat. and "vivuti" means "food" because the prefix "vi-" makes a verb into a noun. So "I eat food is "Uka vuti vivuti." Of course, you'd normally just say "I eat."
Well, that would make it like trying to alliterate in Swahili, or trying to rhyme in Latin. In other words; not difficult.
I'm not sure the redundancy is a bug instead of a feature. An L1-speaker's tolerance-setting for "hysterically" might be a good deal less strict than yours.
My advice (to the degree that I can even actually give advice) would be to go for it if you want to.
Trying to avoid saying the same thing the same way too many times in a shortish utterance is something speakers of languages with lots of synonyms -- i.e. English -- can (and some do) have as a goal.
It might be a worthwhile experience for you to develop this conlang along the lines it's already taking.
--------
But of course, the only real advice is "do what you want as long as it fits your design goals; and your design goals are whatever you say they are".
Eldin has a good point here. Language speakers tend to reduce redundancy if for solely the reason of not wanting to use those tongue muscles. [:P]. Maybe have repetitive structures be prefixed, so something like
Uka vuti vi
1SG eat NOM
"I eat food"
Sometimes its important to have a construction that can concisely say that, even if redundant. What if I wanted to shout at the chef "I eat food, not garbage!". The most realistic construction I can see would be just retaining the nominalizer, but cutting off the verb.
Spoiler: show
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
Iyionaku
roman
roman
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sun 25 May 2014, 13:17

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Iyionaku » Wed 13 Sep 2017, 05:14

Iyionaku wrote:I am thinking of adding a system of evidentiality to Yélian, which would fit neatly by means of verbal participles as prefixes (I've always considered Yélian classifiers as an open class, so structurally it will fit and even be plausible to raise naturally).

Ta tem yiolket. - She killed him.
Ta tem yirîyatsolket. - I heard that she killed him / From hearsay it is known that she killed him. [From rîya - to hear]
Ta tem yivalatsolket. - I saw that she killed him / Obviously, she killed him. [From vala - to see]

And maybe a few more.

What speaks against it is that this will add an additional category to Yélian verbs (that can already be very long) and hence will make speaking even more complicated without fixing something that couldn't be said before. Plus, it will make it hard to distinguish from formally identical constructions that would mean "She killed him audibly"; "She killed him visibly" etc.

Jay or nay?
Heaven and Earth, but I feel the color of the cake when you keep the Victoria.
I had a mantra on the moss and I had to go to bed.


Oh, and there is a [ɕ] in my name!
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3886
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » Wed 13 Sep 2017, 09:26

Yay.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5471
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Lao Kou » Wed 13 Sep 2017, 10:33

Iyionaku wrote:I am thinking of adding a system of evidentiality to Yélian, which would fit neatly by means of verbal participles as prefixes (I've always considered Yélian classifiers as an open class, so structurally it will fit and even be plausible to raise naturally).

What speaks against it is that this will add an additional category to Yélian verbs (that can already be very long) and hence will make speaking even more complicated without fixing something that couldn't be said before. Plus, it will make it hard to distinguish from formally identical constructions that would mean "She killed him audibly"; "She killed him visibly" etc.

Jay or nay?
食べさせられました
tabesaseraremashita

I wouldn't worry about length.

And nearly identical constructions are cool and can always be cleared up, if one cares to, by using a modifier or two.

Yay.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1989
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by loglorn » Wed 13 Sep 2017, 13:30

Lao Kou wrote:
Iyionaku wrote:I am thinking of adding a system of evidentiality to Yélian, which would fit neatly by means of verbal participles as prefixes (I've always considered Yélian classifiers as an open class, so structurally it will fit and even be plausible to raise naturally).

What speaks against it is that this will add an additional category to Yélian verbs (that can already be very long) and hence will make speaking even more complicated without fixing something that couldn't be said before. Plus, it will make it hard to distinguish from formally identical constructions that would mean "She killed him audibly"; "She killed him visibly" etc.

Jay or nay?
食べさせられました
tabesaseraremashita

I wouldn't worry about length.

And nearly identical constructions are cool and can always be cleared up, if one cares to, by using a modifier or two.

Yay.
If you're not worried about making sense and all that jazz there are some much much longer morphologically possible forms:


食べられさせてしまっておかなければいけません
Taberaresaseteshimatteokanakerebaikemasen


You can't really get any meaning from this though, especially since it implies both a lack of volition and premeditation.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5471
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Lao Kou » Wed 13 Sep 2017, 14:18

loglorn wrote:
Lao Kou wrote:
Iyionaku wrote:I am thinking of adding a system of evidentiality to Yélian, which would fit neatly by means of verbal participles as prefixes (I've always considered Yélian classifiers as an open class, so structurally it will fit and even be plausible to raise naturally).

What speaks against it is that this will add an additional category to Yélian verbs (that can already be very long) and hence will make speaking even more complicated without fixing something that couldn't be said before. Plus, it will make it hard to distinguish from formally identical constructions that would mean "She killed him audibly"; "She killed him visibly" etc.

Jay or nay?
食べさせられました
tabesaseraremashita

I wouldn't worry about length.

And nearly identical constructions are cool and can always be cleared up, if one cares to, by using a modifier or two.

Yay.
If you're not worried about making sense and all that jazz there are some much much longer morphologically possible forms:

食べられさせてしまっておかなければいけません
Taberaresaseteshimatteokanakerebaikemasen

You can't really get any meaning from this though, especially since it implies both a lack of volition and premeditation.
Presumably, one would like to say things that make a modicum of sense in context. My point is: I wouldn't worry about an extra syllable or two or three in the name of evidentiality. That doesn't mean one has to make it a syllable-count ad absurdum game of "Can You Top This?"

Still yay.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5632
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 13 Sep 2017, 19:56

esoanem wrote:One idea I've had for a while for one of my conlangs is to give each verb two tenses, one fixing the start of the action (the initial tense) and one fixing the end of the action (the terminal tense). Together with more than one degree of past and future, this would give plenty of opportunity for varying degrees of perfectivity to be expressed.
The general idea is broadly similar to something I saw online before phpBBoards were invented. So the guy-or-gal had to make his-or-her illustrating diagrams via ASCII art.
I can't remember seeing it ever combined with degrees-of-remoteness for the tenses, though, nor with the idea of perfect or prospective (if that's what you meant?) nor perfective-vs-imperfective (i.e. aspect, if that's what you meant).
Spoiler: show
AWAICR (as well as I can remember) the candidate beginning times were:
* "infinitely" long-ago past
* a certain (probably known) past time
* right now
* a certain (perhaps known) future time.

And AWAICR the candidate ending times were:
* a certain (probably known) past time
* right now
* a certain (perhaps known) future time.
* "infinitely" far in the future; or never-ending; or indefinitely.

The candidate durations were:
* momentary (a point in time)
* a perceptible but finite amount of time
* an "infinite" time
Spoiler: show
You can see there'd be several logically-possible combinations; but not 48(=4*4*3) of them!
Actually there are only 15 logically-possible combinations.

If the "duration" is momentary -- i.e. imperceptibly short, or instantaneous -- there are just three combinations of beginning-and-ending tenses;
* begun-finite-past-ended-immediately
* begins-right-now-ends-immediately
* will-begin-finite-future-will-end-immediately

If the duration is a perceptible but finite amount of time, there are five combinations of beginning-and-ending; to wit,
* begun-finite-past-ended-later-past
* will-begin-future-will-end-later-finite-future
* begun-finite-past-ending-just-now
* beginning-right-now-will-end-finite-future
* begun-finite-past-will-end-finite-future

If the duration is infinite there are seven combinations of beginning-and-ending-tense;
* always been that way and always will be.
* was always that way until right now. (but maybe won't be from now on.)
* will always be that way from now on. (but maybe never was that way until now).
* started some definite time in the past and will never end.
* has always been, but will end at some definite time in the future.
* had always been true up until some definite time in the past.
* will always be true beginning at some definite time in the future.
[hr][/hr]
[hr][/hr]
Edit:
Iyionaku wrote:I am thinking of adding a system of evidentiality to Yélian, which ....
Jay or nay?
I say "Yay". Late to the party, I know, but I still say "Yay".
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Wed 20 Sep 2017, 23:05, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
esoanem
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2017, 13:03
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by esoanem » Wed 13 Sep 2017, 23:47

Ah yeah, that does seem similar in concept although I'm not sure I see much reason to make the duration part of concept per se rather than having it just emerge from the start and end points. The asymmetry (with only having the distant/infinite past available in the initial tense and the distant/infinite future only in the terminal tense)'s interesting though.

It's cool and reassuring for its plausibility that I'm not the only person to have though of something along these lines though
My pronouns are they/them/their

:gbr: native | :esp: fluentish | :deu: learning | :fra: learning | :rus: learning | :ell: lapsed | :navi: lapsed | :con: making a bunch
Iyionaku
roman
roman
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sun 25 May 2014, 13:17

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Iyionaku » Fri 15 Sep 2017, 12:56

Thanks guys. I will implement it then.

And sorry for being a little passive-aggressive, I just didn't want to have it buried by... well... variants of Portugese.
Heaven and Earth, but I feel the color of the cake when you keep the Victoria.
I had a mantra on the moss and I had to go to bed.


Oh, and there is a [ɕ] in my name!
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 642
Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 14:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Adarain » Fri 15 Sep 2017, 15:07

Alright, I have a somewhat difficult decision to make: I feel the need to change a feature of Mesak that has been established since essentially day 1. As such I would like to ask for some feedback.

Right now, Mesak’s ergative case is directly derived from the absolutive case via a possessive construction: There is a clitic ñ which acts as the possessor of a noun phrase in the absolutive to turn it ergative:

kámbos man (absolutive)

Code: Select all

káb-o-s
man-SG-ABS

ñ-ikábnos the ergative’s man = man (ergative)

Code: Select all

ñ=i-káb-no-s
ERG=3poss-man-SG>SG-ABS

Now, I feel like it would be more consistent with… pretty much with syntax in general, if I switched the order of possession, yielding this:

kámbot iñnos the man’s ergative = man (ergative)

Code: Select all

káb-o-t     i-ñ-no-s
man-SG-ESS  3POSS-ERG-SG>SG-ABS
I think this makes much more sense syntactically; but it’s also less interesting, and more importantly, would mean changing things that had been established for a very long time.
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.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 8684
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Fri 15 Sep 2017, 16:29

Hmm, I think I'd leave things as they are, personally.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4371
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » Fri 15 Sep 2017, 16:37

shimobaatar wrote:Hmm, I think I'd leave things as they are, personally.
[+1]

I vote nay as well, just because I prefer the agglutination in ñ-ikábnos.
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Fri 15 Sep 2017, 16:40

Adarain wrote:
Spoiler: show
Alright, I have a somewhat difficult decision to make: I feel the need to change a feature of Mesak that has been established since essentially day 1. As such I would like to ask for some feedback.

Right now, Mesak’s ergative case is directly derived from the absolutive case via a possessive construction: There is a clitic ñ which acts as the possessor of a noun phrase in the absolutive to turn it ergative:

kámbos man (absolutive)

Code: Select all

káb-o-s
man-SG-ABS

ñ-ikábnos the ergative’s man = man (ergative)

Code: Select all

ñ=i-káb-no-s
ERG=3poss-man-SG>SG-ABS

Now, I feel like it would be more consistent with… pretty much with syntax in general, if I switched the order of possession, yielding this:

kámbot iñnos the man’s ergative = man (ergative)

Code: Select all

káb-o-t     i-ñ-no-s
man-SG-ESS  3POSS-ERG-SG>SG-ABS
I think this makes much more sense syntactically; but it’s also less interesting, and more importantly, would mean changing things that had been established for a very long time.
For the first I don't think that's how any case affix/clitic/adposition has ever worked in any natural language (they're always the heads of a noun phrase, never a dependant if you see what I mean), so in that respect the second would be the "more" natural one (though some of the other things going on look a little odd to me, do you have any resources online I could look at to see what's going on?). You could keep the first one though if you reanalysed it to say that it was a single prepositional clitic ñi= rather than a possessive construction.
Osia
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2016, 00:16
Location: The Observable Universe

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Osia » Sun 24 Sep 2017, 23:46

Ok, so in my language Tasaqi, I have a large inventory of postural verbs, which indicate locatives depending on the characteristics of the object. For example, "I am at the store." is "I stand at the store.". These verbs commonly get grammaticalized to indicate imperfective aspect, so I am thinking of having many distinct imperfective markers that vary depending on the semantics of the object, but I don't want a marked imperfective and unmarked perfective.

Yay or Nay?
English: :mrgreen:
Spanish: [:'(]
Want to Learn: All other languages [:P]

Tasaqi
Modern Lyran
Spoiler: show
ʰ ʷ č λ š ł x̌ ʕ ą į ų ́
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3886
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » Mon 25 Sep 2017, 11:17

Yay, sounds a bit like Khoekhoe?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: Canada

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine » Sat 30 Sep 2017, 02:46

Should I introduce front rounded vowels to my Hungarian inspired romlang?

I could easily innovate them from /wE/ and /wI/ like in the word /'battwErE/ > modern /'bat2r/ <batör>
The worst thing you can do to an idea is forget about it.
Porphyrogenitos
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat 21 Jul 2012, 07:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Porphyrogenitos » Sat 30 Sep 2017, 02:53

Ælfwine wrote:Should I introduce front rounded vowels to my Hungarian inspired romlang?

I could easily innovate them from /wE/ and /wI/ like in the word /'battwErE/ > modern /'bat2r/ <batör>
The answer is always: Do it, but have another dialect not do it.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4277
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 » Sat 30 Sep 2017, 03:03

Ælfwine wrote:Should I introduce front rounded vowels to my Hungarian inspired romlang?

I could easily innovate them from /wE/ and /wI/ like in the word /'battwErE/ > modern /'bat2r/ <batör>
I'd imagine the more Frenchy route of el and il are also possibilities. You should seek out multiple paths, not just one.
Spoiler: show
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Dormouse559 » Sat 30 Sep 2017, 03:24

/wɛ/ > /ø/ is also quite Frenchy, as it happens. In cœur, for example, you have /kwer/ > /kœr/. I say yea. Front rounded vowels are fun.
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: Canada

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine » Sat 30 Sep 2017, 03:34

I do love front rounded vowels. [<3]
qwed117 wrote:
Ælfwine wrote:Should I introduce front rounded vowels to my Hungarian inspired romlang?

I could easily innovate them from /wE/ and /wI/ like in the word /'battwErE/ > modern /'bat2r/ <batör>
I'd imagine the more Frenchy route of el and il are also possibilities. You should seek out multiple paths, not just one.
[O.o] I'm not sure how Italian definite articles play into this? Unless this is /eI/ /iI/ you are talking about.
The worst thing you can do to an idea is forget about it.
Post Reply