Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Fri 17 Nov 2017, 21:43

eldin raigmore wrote:
Fri 17 Nov 2017, 19:17
Ahzoh wrote:
Fri 17 Nov 2017, 08:50
Yay or nay?
Proto-Haxyakian should have a "closed" class of motion verbs from numerous others will be derived from.
IIRC you want Proto-H to have a small closed class of motion verbs, from which many Haxyakian (motion?) verbs will be derived??
I'd say "yay", particularly since it's Proto-H that will have the small closed class of motion verbs. (A con-proto-lang or proto-con-lang doesn't have to be as neat as a conlang.)
------
Will you use them as if light verbs, so that the Haxyakian verbs which derive from them will be (quasi-transparently, I suppose) lightverb+contentword compounds? (Or contentword+lightverb compounds?)
Will you use them as if auxiliary words, so that the Haxyakian verbs which derive from them will be (quasi-transparently, I suppose) auxiliaryword+mainverb compounds? (Or mainverb+auxiliaryword compounds?)
Or both?
Or also some third possibility?
Or what?
Well, there would be a set number of roots like...
praċ - arrive, come
qə̄́n - climb (tr.)
nāź - depart, leave
fā́d - lead, guide (tr.)
qā́s - lie down (intr.)
xḕb - move en masse (intr.)
mát - move by foot (intr.)
rùm - move on a path (intr.)
ǧát - pass by, pass through (a fluid) (tr.)
yéne - swim
...And I just add affixes denoting various aspects or prepositions to convey more complex motions.
zāmát - enter, approach
yéneūb - dive
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » Fri 17 Nov 2017, 21:58

Ahzoh wrote:
Fri 17 Nov 2017, 21:43
...And I just add affixes denoting various aspects or prepositions to convey more complex motions.
zāmát - enter, approach
yéneūb - dive
Some of those are (or could be considered) auxiliary-words. (In particular, those that helped specify aspect, modality/mode/mood, polarity, tense, or voice.)
Others -- the adpositional-ish and adverbial-ish ones -- are sort-of similar to auxiliary words. (If that's how you choose to look at them.)

-----

One popular typology of languages by their motion-verbs has two main types;
those that encode the path in the verb but put the manner in the satellites (viz. enter quickly),
and those that encode the manner in the verb but encode the path in the satellites (viz. run in).
There are also minority types; the one with which I am familiar encodes the substance moving (ooze, drip, drizzle, flow, etc.).
Have you heard of that?
Even if it's interesting to you, it might not help with Proto-H. But might it?
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 01:50

eldin raigmore wrote:
Fri 17 Nov 2017, 21:58
One popular typology of languages by their motion-verbs has two main types;
those that encode the path in the verb but put the manner in the satellites (viz. enter quickly),
and those that encode the manner in the verb but encode the path in the satellites (viz. run in).
There are also minority types; the one with which I am familiar encodes the substance moving (ooze, drip, drizzle, flow, etc.).
Have you heard of that?
Even if it's interesting to you, it might not help with Proto-H. But might it?
I've heard of it, I think my language is mostly satellite-framing.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 04:45

gach wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 11:29
Ælfwine wrote:
Fri 10 Nov 2017, 00:26
For example, taking the verb "callar" /ˈkʰalːər/ to call:

ég callar > callar "I call"
tú callar > challar /ˈxalːər/ "You call"
hann/hun callar > gcallar /ˈgalːər/ "He/She calls"

and so on.
Depends very much on the "and so on" bit. If you can make all the key person/number distinctions by the means of mutations. nothing stops them from grammaticalising as the new person marking device. On the other hand, if there are forms in the paradigm that can't be distinguished by mutations alone (or if some onsets don't support all the mutations), the speakers will want to continue using pronouns when clarity is needed. If this happens too often, it puts pressure to the forms with distinct mutations to retain their pronouns as well.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't find it too strange at all that your singular paradigm would drop its pronouns, even if the plural paradigm would function as a single block with the same mutation as one of the singular forms. Continuing to use the plural pronouns a bit longer could eventually lead to them eroding into some form of new plural affixes.

So the best thing to do depends on what the plural paradigm does and if you have any onsets that break the mutation pattern. However, even then I'd say go for it, since whenever problems arise they force you to be creative.
It's likely that the plural paradigm would have a different inflection in the suffix, so instead of -ar it would be -adh or something, haven't figured it out yet. I might keep the irregularity in the plural suffixes since við, þið and þeir all end in a consonant and therefore wouldn't cause any initial mutation.

Here's this word in Icelandic for reference: http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php? ... lla&H1=128

I essentially gave the singular the same suffix, -ar, through analogy so that it would be differentiated by initial mutation alone, but I am not sure what to do with the plural forms.
Porphyrogenitos wrote:
Wed 15 Nov 2017, 15:28
Relatedly, Ælfwine, do you have a thread or some page about Mannish? It looks interesting; I'd like to see more about it.
I've bits and pieces strewn here and there. My nominal declension is here, for example. However I may get a full thread up soon.
The worst thing you can do to an idea is forget about it.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 04:50

Ahzoh wrote:
Sat 18 Nov 2017, 01:50
I've heard of it, I think my language is mostly satellite-framing.
Thanks!

Which part is in the satellites, in "satellite-framing" languages? The manner or the path/direction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_framing makes "framing" mean "what encodes the path/direction"; so English's "run in" is satellite-framed, whereas Spanish's "entró corriendo" is verb-framed.
But I have to look that up; when I just see "X-framed" (where "X" is either "verb" or "satellite"), I don't automatically know they're talking about where the path or direction is encoded vs where the speed or manner is encoded.

Do you think there's a better term?

Anyway; would your proto-Haxyakian conprotolang(?) have a handful of different manner-encoding motion verbs?
I count 7 manner-encoding ones and 2 path-encoding ones (prac and naz, pardon my mis-spelling).
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 06:15

It seems understandable that framing only references direction of motion only and thus satellite vs verb refers to which one encodes the direction of motion.
eldin raigmore wrote:
Sat 18 Nov 2017, 04:50
Anyway; would your proto-Haxyakian conprotolang(?) have a handful of different manner-encoding motion verbs?
I count 7 manner-encoding ones and 2 path-encoding ones (prac and naz, pardon my mis-spelling).
The proto-conlang should have about 20-30 motion verbs.

These are what exists so far.
Manner-encoded (7)
xḕb - move en masse (intr.)
yéne - swim
mát - move by foot (intr.)
ǧát - pass, go past (tr.)
fā́d - lead, guide (tr.)
rùm - move on a path (intr.)
qā́s - lie (intr.)

Direction-encoded (2)
paċ - arrive, come
nāź - depart, leave

Uncertain (2)
píru - fall
qə̄́n - rise, get up, stand up
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » Sun 19 Nov 2017, 22:39

Thanks.
That's cool!

I wonder if "fall" wouldn't always be "down"?
Or, at least, would carry an assumption of "down" as the default direction in which to fall, subject to being over-ridden by a satellite such as "backward" or "forward" or "to the side"?

Does "fall" encode a manner? "Under the influence of the force of gravity", or some such, for instance?
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5998
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » Sun 19 Nov 2017, 23:32

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sun 19 Nov 2017, 22:39
Thanks.
That's cool!

I wonder if "fall" wouldn't always be "down"?
Or, at least, would carry an assumption of "down" as the default direction in which to fall, subject to being over-ridden by a satellite such as "backward" or "forward" or "to the side"?

Does "fall" encode a manner? "Under the influence of the force of gravity", or some such, for instance?
I think fall is one of those verbs that encodes both manner and direction. It's definitely different in manner than simply "go down".
It's something discussed in here:
https://www.linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-899.html
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Evynova
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017, 18:28
Location: Belgium

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Evynova » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 12:51

I've decided to apply some diachronic phonological changes to Soo ta Aangii. The thread posted on the forum describes the languages as spoken before the arrival of the Roderan settlers on the island. After several generations, the language evolved, and I want start working on this soon. So, I've never done this before, and the sound changes are probably going to be basic and not very original, but I want to see if I, at the very least, can do it properly.

So here's what I have:

Vowels:
Word-initially (the stressed syllable):

/æ/ → /ɛ/
/ɛ/ → /ɛ͡e/ → /e͡ɪ/
/i/ → /ɨ͡i/
/ɔ/ → /o/

In other syllables:
/æ/ → /a/ → /ɐ/
/ɛ/ → /ɜ/
/i/ → /ɪ~ɨ/
/ɔ~o/ → /ʊ/

In all environments:
/a͡i/ → /æː/
/e͡i/ → /ejə/
/u͡i/ → /ʉ/
/æː/ → /aː/ → /a͡ɐ/
/ɛː/ → /æː/
/iː/ → /ijə/ → /ejə/
/oː/ → /ɒw/

Note:
Central and back vowels, excluding dipthongs and glides, are dropped when word-final. That is to say: /ɐ ʉ ɜ o/

Consonants:
Word-initially:
/p t k/ → /pʰ tʰ kʰ/
/m n ŋ/ → /mb nd ŋg/
/s v h ʝ/ → /θ w ɸ ʑ/
/ɭ~ɽ/ → /ɫ/

Intervocalically:
/p t k/ → /b d g/
/ʔ/ → /ʔ̰/ approximant with laryngealisation of the preceding vowel
/m n ŋ/ → /m n ŋ/ and nasalisation of the preceding vowel
/s h ʋ ʝ/ → /z ɦ w ʑ/
/ɽ/ → /ɾ/

Word-finally:
/m n ŋ/ → /w ∅ j/ with nasalisation of the preceding vowel
/s/ → /ɕ/
/ɭ~ɽ/ → /r/

Examples:
- mijaa (love)
/mi.ʝæː/ → /mbɨ͡i.ʑa͡ɐ/

- vikeii (beautiful, attractive)
/vi.kɛ.iː/ → /wɨ.gɜ.ejə/

- tokaeliin (snake, venomous or toxic worm)
/to.kæ.ɛ.ɽiːn/ → tʰo.gɐ.ɜ.ɫejə̃/

- i'ana (want, wish for, desire)
/i.ʔæ.næ/ → /ɨ̰͡ḭʔ̰.ɐ̃/

Yay or nay?
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by loglorn » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 13:41

Yay, yay! People doing diachronics always make me happy, and you seem to be off to a better start than many.

I'd add a couple more changes to what you have, namely merging the laryngealization and the nasalization, and simplifying all those VV sequences with central vowels u ended up with. You don't necessarily need to do anything though, these are just suggestions.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
Evynova
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017, 18:28
Location: Belgium

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Evynova » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 20:21

loglorn wrote:
Thu 23 Nov 2017, 13:41
Yay, yay! People doing diachronics always make me happy, and you seem to be off to a better start than many.

I'd add a couple more changes to what you have, namely merging the laryngealization and the nasalization, and simplifying all those VV sequences with central vowels u ended up with. You don't necessarily need to do anything though, these are just suggestions.
Thanks! Glad I'm not doing too bad then ^-^

How would you suggest I merge the laryngealisation and nasalisation? And about the VV sequences, do you mean simplifying all the glides and dipthongs into "one-phoneme" vowels?
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue 28 Jul 2015, 17:43

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by ixals » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 20:33

loglorn wrote:
Thu 23 Nov 2017, 13:41
[...], and simplifying all those VV sequences with central vowels u ended up with.
First of all, I really like the sound changes and it's a very interesting language to look at, imo. But I do agree with loglorn on symplifying the VV sequences, especially with vowels being prone to change like in your language here. E.g. /to.kæ.ɛ.ɽiːn/: The VV sequence /æ.ɛ/ could very easily merge into a single (long) vowel or diphthong. Same with the /ɜ.e/ in /wɨ.gɜ.ejə/. They are close to each other and in a language with vowels moving around as much as in your language, I think it would be more realistic to merge them at some point. But as loglorn said, it's just a suggestion. :mrgreen:
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
Evynova
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017, 18:28
Location: Belgium

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Evynova » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 22:21

Oh, I see. I was actually thinking about it myself. When I was practising to pronounce them, I was wondering whether to keep the stress pattern on the first syllable and merge those VV sequences, or have a new stress pattern that would allow them to maintain themselves. But you're right, merging them would make more sense. I'll get to that, then! Thanks :)
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by loglorn » Fri 24 Nov 2017, 00:26

Evynova wrote:
Thu 23 Nov 2017, 20:21
[...], How would you suggest I merge the laryngealisation and nasalisation? [...]
I was suggesting you just straight up merge them actually. Yes that's possible, yes that's attested.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
Omzinesý
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 19:33

If a language has three cases of location
1 for being inside X
2 for being on the surface of X
and
3 for being near to X,
which of them would the most probably develop a side meaning as an instrumental?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 19:40

Omzinesý wrote:
Tue 05 Dec 2017, 19:33
If a language has three cases of location
1 for being inside X
2 for being on the surface of X
and
3 for being near to X,
which of them would the most probably develop a side meaning as an instrumental?
IMO 3 is likeliest, 2 second-likeliest, 1 not likely at all.
Your instrument is usually near you, and near whatever you're using it on.
It may be that, to use it, you have to touch it as long as you're using it; and it may be that, to use it on something, you have to touch the something with it as long as you're using it on that something.
But it almost* never needs to be inside you; and it only sometimes has to go inside what you're using it on.

*Exceptions might be e.g. "Use your brain!", or "I spy with my little eye ...", or so on. But most instruments aren't body-parts of the user.
User avatar
Evynova
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017, 18:28
Location: Belgium

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Evynova » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 14:27

Before posting a dedicated thread for Urxan, I'm working on all the little tweaks and details, and there are still some little details about which I'm unsure.

(Urxan society is matriarcal and women have power over men. I'm experimenting with how culture and society may influence language. If it's too unnaturalistic for it to even be conceivable, just let me know and I'll make the changes. I'm not necessarily looking for realism, it's more of a what if scenario.)

One such thing I've been thinking about is implementing some sort of schism between male and female speakers, genderlects if you will. The idea would be to have male and female speakers pronounce certain phonemes differently: word/suffix-initial voiceless plosives realised as affricates by men, and voiced stops by women. Also — but I'm less sure — have some merged dipthongs be realised as single vowels by uneducated males and females, but kept as dipthongs by the educated members of society who learned how to read (the conscript would of course still write those vowels like dipthongs, and reading them as such would serve as a social class marker, so to speak).

Another idea, a bit more realistic in my opinion, would be extensive use of taboo and avoidance speech on men's part. It would be socially unacceptable for men to look at a woman who isn't his younger sister in the eye, or to speak directly to her. He would have to use 3rd person pronouns or refer to himself as "this one; this man". As for taboo, men would not be allowed to talk about war, tools, weapons, agriculture, female anatomy (and probably others) in the presence of women, and would have to use paraphrastic equivalents if need be. A sword could become a "peace-bringer"; a woman's eye would be a "which-that-sees"; her hair, "the golden foliage" (most Urxans are red-headed).

What do you think? Interesting or lame?
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4475
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 15:40

Genderlects, as you termed them, are attested. An examples that pops to mind is Chukchi.
User avatar
Evynova
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017, 18:28
Location: Belgium

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Evynova » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 15:59

DesEsseintes wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 15:40
Genderlects, as you termed them, are attested. An examples that pops to mind is Chukchi.
I was actually inspired by Yanyuwa and how male and female speakers will use different morphology. I thought I'd play around with this concept but I don't know if phonological differences are attested. I looked Chukchi up but I didn't find anything in the wiki article. I'll look into it more later tonight.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4475
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 16:17

Evynova wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 15:59
DesEsseintes wrote:
Thu 07 Dec 2017, 15:40
Genderlects, as you termed them, are attested. An examples that pops to mind is Chukchi.
I was actually inspired by Yanyuwa and how male and female speakers will use different morphology. I thought I'd play around with this concept but I don't know if phonological differences are attested. I looked Chukchi up but I didn't find anything in the wiki article. I'll look into it more later tonight.
Chukchi has different phoneme distributions and realisations for male and female speakers. Check Michael Dunn, pg. 47. I think it’s in the pile. Otherwise you can PM me.
Post Reply