Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat 01 Mar 2014, 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn » Mon 01 Oct 2018, 23:26

I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it but I've been working on a sort of conlanging exercise. It's a Germanic language similar to Dutch and Low German which has technically removed cases from its grammar, but one that uses fossilized case usages so frequently that it's still practically a necessity to learn cases in order to properly speak the language. I was wondering if anyone would be curious in seeing a thread about this. [:)]
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10691
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Mon 01 Oct 2018, 23:59

All4Ɇn wrote:
Mon 01 Oct 2018, 23:26
I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it but I've been working on a sort of conlanging exercise. It's a Germanic language similar to Dutch and Low German which has technically removed cases from its grammar, but one that uses fossilized case usages so frequently that it's still practically a necessity to learn cases in order to properly speak the language. I was wondering if anyone would be curious in seeing a thread about this. [:)]
Yes, absolutely!
Nachtuil
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2016, 23:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Nachtuil » Thu 04 Oct 2018, 18:32

All4Ɇn wrote:
Mon 01 Oct 2018, 23:26
I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it but I've been working on a sort of conlanging exercise. It's a Germanic language similar to Dutch and Low German which has technically removed cases from its grammar, but one that uses fossilized case usages so frequently that it's still practically a necessity to learn cases in order to properly speak the language. I was wondering if anyone would be curious in seeing a thread about this. [:)]
Seems interesting potentially. I quite like low Germanic languages myself generally. I find it hard to conceptualise a situation where case remains fully understood but only exists in fossilised set phrases but knowledge of it is necessary to speak it properly though at the same time not necessary. Could it be that you have a prestige dialect that retains the use of case and it is more optional or diminished in common usage? I like the idea of a transitional state from case to non-case and again, I am enthusiastic about low Germanic languages generally. I would be interested in what you do with it for sure.
tseren
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon 12 Dec 2016, 20:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by tseren » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 18:37

Since pː → pʰ is attested, how likely is the opposite pʰ → pː in an intervocalic environment? Both [pʰ] and [pː] could be viewed as fortis realizations of [p]. Yea or Nay on making them interchangeable intervocalically such that:

p pʰ → f p \ V_V
User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue 23 Feb 2016, 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by WeepingElf » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 19:33

tseren wrote:
Mon 08 Oct 2018, 18:37
Since pː → pʰ is attested, how likely is the opposite pʰ → pː in an intervocalic environment? Both [pʰ] and [pː] could be viewed as fortis realizations of [p]. Yea or Nay on making them interchangeable intervocalically such that:

p pʰ → f p \ V_V
I'd say nay: [pʰ] is more likely to become [f] than [p]. The change you are asking about seems like leap-frogging to me.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7622
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Lambuzhao » Tue 09 Oct 2018, 02:35

I bet someone already mentioned this, but anyway:

What happens when an aspect is argued without sufficient sway?
If it's neither 'yay' nor 'nay', does that make it 'gray' ?
:wat:
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10691
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Tue 09 Oct 2018, 12:38

Lambuzhao wrote:
Tue 09 Oct 2018, 02:35
What happens when an aspect is argued without sufficient sway?
If it's neither 'yay' nor 'nay', does that make it 'gray' ?
Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to ask. Could you perhaps clarify?
User avatar
gach
MVP
MVP
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed 07 Aug 2013, 00:26
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gach » Tue 09 Oct 2018, 13:12

tseren wrote:
Mon 08 Oct 2018, 18:37
Since pː → pʰ is attested, how likely is the opposite pʰ → pː in an intervocalic environment? Both [pʰ] and [pː] could be viewed as fortis realizations of [p]. Yea or Nay on making them interchangeable intervocalically such that:

p pʰ → f p \ V_V
Maybe, though I'd like to see real world examples of Cʰ > C: to be truly happy with the justification. My preferred development path would still be along the lines of

p > b > β > f
pʰ > p
User avatar
spanick
greek
greek
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu 11 May 2017, 00:47
Location: California

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by spanick » Wed 10 Oct 2018, 19:02

Option 4 but maybe have one of the classes be quite rare compared to the others.
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » Tue 16 Oct 2018, 22:44

I'm working on Denkurian's nominal declension system, and I think I am mostly satisfied with where I've ended up, except I'm not too sure about what I have for the genitive plural. I am using the example noun razh man, since it is a consonant stem:

Code: Select all

	sg.	pl.
nom.	razh	razhen
acc.	razhes	razhis
gen.	razhek	razhenek
dat.	razhev	razhiv
inst.	razhed	razhidi
In this set, the genitive plural ending is -(e)nek, which is basically the nominative accusative plural plus the genitive ending, instead of the normal oblique plural marker -i.

I was considering the following genitive plural markers:
  1. -(e)nek, as above
  2. -(e)kel, using an old collective affix -el
  3. -(e)ken, reversing the order of the case and plural suffix
  4. -inek, using both the oblique and nominative plural, plus the genitive ending
  5. Some other combination/order of the genitive affix -(e)k, the oblique plural -i, the nominative plural -(e)n, and the old collective affix -el
Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks in advance!
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine » Tue 16 Oct 2018, 23:10

Honestly, having -ik as the plural in analogy with the dative and accusative might suffice, unless you are going for something totally regular and agglutinative.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Mannish — A North Germanic language spoken on the Calf of Man
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » Tue 16 Oct 2018, 23:44

Ælfwine wrote:
Tue 16 Oct 2018, 23:10
Honestly, having -ik as the plural in analogy with the dative and accusative might suffice, unless you are going for something totally regular and agglutinative.
I thought about that as well; I guess I saw the -ik option as appearing even more regular and agglutinative.
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
spanick
greek
greek
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu 11 May 2017, 00:47
Location: California

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by spanick » Wed 17 Oct 2018, 01:27

I like 1 and 4.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2444
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » Wed 17 Oct 2018, 14:17

felipesnark wrote:
Tue 16 Oct 2018, 22:44
I'm working on Denkurian's nominal declension system, and I think I am mostly satisfied with where I've ended up, except I'm not too sure about what I have for the genitive plural. I am using the example noun razh man, since it is a consonant stem:

Code: Select all

	sg.	pl.
nom.	razh	razhen
acc.	razhes	razhis
gen.	razhek	razhenek
dat.	razhev	razhiv
inst.	razhed	razhidi
In this set, the genitive plural ending is -(e)nek, which is basically the nominative accusative plural plus the genitive ending, instead of the normal oblique plural marker -i.

I was considering the following genitive plural markers:
  1. -(e)nek, as above
  2. -(e)kel, using an old collective affix -el
  3. -(e)ken, reversing the order of the case and plural suffix
  4. -inek, using both the oblique and nominative plural, plus the genitive ending
  5. Some other combination/order of the genitive affix -(e)k, the oblique plural -i, the nominative plural -(e)n, and the old collective affix -el
Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks in advance!
It seems to be plural genitives that are most varied in languages. Finnish has enkeli-en, enkele-iden, enkele-itten, enkel-ten (and enkele-in) all meaning ' angels' ' Russian plural genitives are also famously difficult.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10691
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Wed 17 Oct 2018, 16:10

Going by sound alone, I think I like options 1 and 4 the most.
User avatar
jimydog000
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat 19 Mar 2016, 04:14
Location: Australia

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by jimydog000 » Wed 17 Oct 2018, 16:40

gach wrote:
Tue 09 Oct 2018, 13:12
tseren wrote:
Mon 08 Oct 2018, 18:37
Since pː → pʰ is attested, how likely is the opposite pʰ → pː in an intervocalic environment? Both [pʰ] and [pː] could be viewed as fortis realizations of [p]. Yea or Nay on making them interchangeable intervocalically such that:

p pʰ → f p \ V_V
Maybe, though I'd like to see real world examples of Cʰ > C: to be truly happy with the justification. My preferred development path would still be along the lines of

p > b > β > f
pʰ > p
β > f is pretty rare and strange though.

If your okay with devoicing between consonants (like gach's β > f) you could try:
pʰ > b > bː > pː
p > f

or:
p > f
pʰ > p > pː
But like gach I'd expect pʰ to become f over p.

There is this one rule I found here: http://pbase.phon.chass.ncsu.edu/pattern/4231 . And that's it.

So... nay? Subjectively better option:
pʰ > f \ V_V
p > pː \ V_V[+stress]
“Comparison is the death of joy.” -Mark Twain
User avatar
gach
MVP
MVP
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed 07 Aug 2013, 00:26
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gach » Fri 19 Oct 2018, 12:38

jimydog000 wrote:
Wed 17 Oct 2018, 16:40
β > f is pretty rare and strange though.
You can impose general devoicing of fricatives, though, in which case the change works nicely. Voicing distinction is anyway less common on fricatives than on stops (https://wals.info/feature/4A#2/19.3/152.9), so loosing voicing on fricatives is not out of question.
Post Reply