New Weekly Indo European Collablang

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Cavaliers327
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue 14 Mar 2017, 23:21

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Cavaliers327 » Tue 20 Feb 2018, 04:58

vo1dwalk3r wrote:
Tue 20 Feb 2018, 04:40

Also dropping word-final schwas might be problematic with words like podmǝ...

We could have metathesis in those cases. That would be the exception. Thanks for the document, much appreciated.
idov
sinic
sinic
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon 13 Apr 2015, 20:02

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by idov » Tue 20 Feb 2018, 16:59

If it isn't too late to give suggestions:

X. Let's develop a comitative case. Ossetic has it, and an Indo-European language could benefit from it.

X2. θs t͡ʃθs tx > t͡s ʂt͡s tx. The last one could become t͡ɕ or tʰ instead, but that isn't really hardening it. Alternatively, we could go back in time and make a subclause to Grassman's law to avoid it or other clusters in the first place.

Otherwise, ignore this.
The accusative of <emo> is <eminem>. :lat:
Cavaliers327
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue 14 Mar 2017, 23:21

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Cavaliers327 » Tue 20 Feb 2018, 17:48

idov wrote:
Tue 20 Feb 2018, 16:59
If it isn't too late to give suggestions:

X. Let's develop a comitative case. Ossetic has it, and an Indo-European language could benefit from it.

X2. θs t͡ʃθs tx > t͡s ʂt͡s tx. The last one could become t͡ɕ or tʰ instead, but that isn't really hardening it. Alternatively, we could go back in time and make a subclause to Grassman's law to avoid it or other clusters in the first place.

Otherwise, ignore this.


No, it's not too late to give suggestions! In fact, I'll use your suggestions for some of the options of the next round of questions. I'd definitely love to see a comitative or some type of essive case develop in the language. Also, I like your suggestions for the consosant clusters . Perhaps the new tʰ could possibly end up becoming θ.


Question to everyone: Do you think it is necessary for the language to lose grammatical gender in order to redevelop an extensive case system naturalistically ? Example : Ossetic
User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2016, 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Vlürch » Tue 20 Feb 2018, 19:15

31. A
32. B
33. C (vo1dwalk3r's suggestion)
34. A
35. A

X. I support idov's suggestion of developing a comitative case.

Anyway, expanding on what I said before about agentive and pegative cases: the reason I think an agentive would be cool is that many languages in the Caucasus are ergative, so even if this one wasn't, it would still have a kind of pseudo-ergative feel to it. As for the pegative case, that would basically take the "agenting" to a whole new level, making the language extremely "agent-heavy" to the point where at some later point in time it would be really easy to either make it ergative by merging the agentive and pegative and getting rid of (most) other cases, or it could have a unique feature that no other Indo-European language has. As for how the latter could develop, it could rise from stacking the agentive and genitive and then collapsing them into a new case. How realistic that would be, I don't really know, but I think it'd be fun. This would of course require the agentive to predate the pegative by some time, so they couldn't really be added at the same time, though.

~

Another idea I had that others will probably disagree with even more than pegatives: conflating the Caucasian Satanaya with Mary the mother of Jesus. Whether the conpeople ever convert to Christianity or Islam or not, and whether they adopted anything from Caucasian religions or not, they would almost certainly have some contact with both Abrahamic religions and Caucasian religions and folklore, so I feel like something like that happening would be realistic enough, especially if they only had sporadic contacts with Christians and Muslims and were more immersed into the cultures of the peoples that already lived in the Caucasus (but only partially adopted their religions/mythology/folklore, etc.)

It'd result in a funny false friend with Satan, you know? [:P]
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by shimobaatar » Wed 21 Feb 2018, 04:04

31: a
32: b
33: c (vo1dwalk3r's suggestion)
34: a
35: b


vo1dwalk3r wrote:
Tue 20 Feb 2018, 04:40
Also, I've tried to do a bit more of the declension system, which I've documented in a new and neater document here. I've tried to make it as clear as possible so we can see the patterns between nouns.
I'm on my phone now, and I haven't looked at the document since this morning, but from what I remember, it looks great! Excellent job, as usual! A few minor things, though:

I think there were a few instances of, for example, /ʃ/ instead of /ʂ/ or /ɕ/. Also, might I request we find a way to distinguish orthographically between the two voiced affricates? I also remember being unclear in some cases regarding which stems listed for some nouns were used with which suffixes. That may have just been because I only got a chance to look over the document quickly, though. Similarly, some of the suffixes had question marks next to them or parts in parentheses, and I wasn't sure what those were meant to indicate.

(Let me know if I misremembered anything.)
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by shimobaatar » Wed 21 Feb 2018, 05:16

Based on the sound changes and orthography in vo1dwalk3r's document, here are the numbers again:

*óynos > oynas /ˈojnas/ óynas "one"
*dwóh₁ > dwo /dwo/ "two"
*tréyes > triyas /ˈtrijas/ "three"
*kʷetwóres > katworas /kaˈtworas/ katwóras "four"
*pénkʷe > pinka /ˈpinka/ "five"
*swéḱs > swič /swit͡ʂ/ "six"
*septḿ̥ > saptmë /saptˈmə/ "seven"
*oḱtṓw > ačtōw /at͡ʂˈtoːw/ "eight"
*h₁néwn̥ > niwnë /ˈniwnə/ "nine"
*déḱm̥ > dišmë /ˈdiʂmə/ "ten"

A few notes:

I assumed that "S̩H > S̩̄" doesn't apply to vowels, just syllabic consonants.
I assumed that "sʃ ʃs > ʃ" also apples to /t͡ʃs/.
I assumed that "iy īy > ī" doesn't apply intervocalically.
I made some guesses about syllable boundaries.

vo1dwalk3r, let me know if you interpreted these rules differently, or if there's anything else I missed or assumed incorrectly. If so, "two", "three", and "six" might instead be dwō /dwoː/, trīas /ˈtriːas/, and swičs /swit͡ʂs/.
Cavaliers327
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue 14 Mar 2017, 23:21

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Cavaliers327 » Sat 24 Feb 2018, 20:35

Results:
Spoiler:

31. Borrow these loanwords?
Spoiler:
a. Yes,
32. Word Order
Spoiler:
b. Remains SOV
33. Loanwords & Phonemes
Spoiler:
c. Welcome the phonemes + vo1dwalk3r's suggestion
34. Vowels & Final Syllables
Spoiler:
a. Still pronounced

35. Do We Leave Eastern Mesoptomia
Spoiler:
a. Yes, about time





New Questions coming soon. ( Grammar & Syntax related)


Has the language begun to look more and more distinct? What should the backstory be for the changes so far?
Cavaliers327
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue 14 Mar 2017, 23:21

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Cavaliers327 » Sun 25 Feb 2018, 18:07

Questions
Spoiler:
36. Case Development
a. We develop the comitative
b. We don't develop the comitative


37. Morphosyntactic Realignment
a. Develop Split Ergativity
b. Retain Nominative- Accusative alignment

38. Clusters...
a. θs t͡ʃθs tx > t͡s ʂt͡s tx. and tx becomes tʰ
b. Nothing happens
c. Suggest your own

39. Vowel Shift soon
a. Yes
b. No

40. Consider losing Grammatical Gender in the future
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. Never
{/spoiler]
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Frislander » Mon 26 Feb 2018, 16:04

36. a
37. a
38. θs, t͡ʃθs, tx > t͡s t͡ʃt tx~tʰ
39. a
40. a
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by shimobaatar » Mon 26 Feb 2018, 18:01

36: a
37: b
38: a
39: b
40: a
idov
sinic
sinic
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon 13 Apr 2015, 20:02

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by idov » Mon 26 Feb 2018, 18:21

36. a
37. a
38. a
39. b
40. b
The accusative of <emo> is <eminem>. :lat:
vo1dwalk3r
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 22:37
Location: dʰǵʰémi
Contact:

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by vo1dwalk3r » Mon 26 Feb 2018, 19:16

Sorry I haven't been super active recently, I've been quite busy but I should have more free time now. Although, getting so into this project has sort of backfired, since I've started my own IE language on the side haha. I've also been reading Fortson's Indo-European Language and Culture, which will hopefully give a better perspective on all this.
shimobaatar wrote:
Wed 21 Feb 2018, 04:04
I think there were a few instances of, for example, /ʃ/ instead of /ʂ/ or /ɕ/. Also, might I request we find a way to distinguish orthographically between the two voiced affricates? I also remember being unclear in some cases regarding which stems listed for some nouns were used with which suffixes. That may have just been because I only got a chance to look over the document quickly, though. Similarly, some of the suffixes had question marks next to them or parts in parentheses, and I wasn't sure what those were meant to indicate.
Ah, yeah I need to fix some ʃ's. I'm not really sure what to do with orthographizing /dʐ dʑ/; I originally had ⟨ǰ j⟩, but I felt like /dʐ/ was way to common so I switched to ⟨j⟩. Maybe we could do ⟨ǵ⟩ for the palatal, or go back to how it originally was. Probably we should vote on the orthography too, maybe other people can come up with their own romanizations.

The parentheses around the -i in the locative singular is there because it's constructed both ways, with and without. In fact there are a lot of places where we should vote on which noun ending we're going to use (using this for the various reconstructions):

Genitive singular (thematic): -ī, -osyo
Locative singular: -i, -Ø
Locative singular (thematic): -oy, -ey
Accusative plural: -ms, -ns
Genitive plural: -om, -ōm, -oHom
Dative plural: -bʰos, -mos

Alternatively, it might be interesting to do something slightly differently than what's reconstructed.
shimobaatar wrote:
Wed 21 Feb 2018, 05:16
Based on the sound changes and orthography in vo1dwalk3r's document, here are the numbers again:

*óynos > oynas /ˈojnas/ óynas "one"
*dwóh₁ > dwo /dwo/ "two"
*tréyes > triyas /ˈtrijas/ "three"
*kʷetwóres > katworas /kaˈtworas/ katwóras "four"
*pénkʷe > pinka /ˈpinka/ "five"
*swéḱs > swič /swit͡ʂ/ "six"
*septḿ̥ > saptmë /saptˈmə/ "seven"
*oḱtṓw > ačtōw /at͡ʂˈtoːw/ "eight"
*h₁néwn̥ > niwnë /ˈniwnə/ "nine"
*déḱm̥ > dišmë /ˈdiʂmə/ "ten"

A few notes:

I assumed that "S̩H > S̩̄" doesn't apply to vowels, just syllabic consonants.
I assumed that "sʃ ʃs > ʃ" also apples to /t͡ʃs/.
I assumed that "iy īy > ī" doesn't apply intervocalically.
I made some guesses about syllable boundaries.

vo1dwalk3r, let me know if you interpreted these rules differently, or if there's anything else I missed or assumed incorrectly. If so, "two", "three", and "six" might instead be dwō /dwoː/, trīas /ˈtriːas/, and swičs /swit͡ʂs/.
The laryngeal lengthening rule does apply to both syllabic consonants and vowels, I should've specified. Otherwise, I think I would apply the iy > ī rule intervocalically but we could vote on that. I'm also not super sure about syllable boundaries, but what you have seems reasonable, although the stresses would shift. I would've had: /ˈoɪ̯.nas dwoː ˈtriː.as ˈka.two.ras ˈpin.ka switʂ ˈsapt.mǝ ˈatʂ.toːʊ̯ ˈniʊ̯.nǝ ˈdiʂ.mǝ/.

One last thing: apparently the PIE pitch accent is hard to reconstruct and Ancient Greek and Sanskrit sometimes disagree on where it was located. We have a couple of options, we could not worry about it and just go with the reconstructions given, try to align to one of the two, or not align exactly with either in all cases (I don't think this is too much of a problem though in most cases). Once we get these last details all figured out I'll probably start my declensions document over so it's all consistent.

36. a
37. a
38. Frislander's suggestion
39. b
40. b
Hominid
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat 20 May 2017, 22:33

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Hominid » Tue 27 Feb 2018, 04:10

a
a
b
a
a
User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2016, 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Vlürch » Tue 27 Feb 2018, 11:05

36. A
37. A
38. Frislander's suggestion
39. B
40. A
Cavaliers327
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue 14 Mar 2017, 23:21

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Cavaliers327 » Wed 28 Feb 2018, 19:12

36. A
37. A ( perhaps later ergative)
38. Frislander's suggestion
39. B
40. A
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by shimobaatar » Thu 01 Mar 2018, 22:38

vo1dwalk3r wrote:
Mon 26 Feb 2018, 19:16
Sorry I haven't been super active recently, I've been quite busy but I should have more free time now. Although, getting so into this project has sort of backfired, since I've started my own IE language on the side haha. I've also been reading Fortson's Indo-European Language and Culture, which will hopefully give a better perspective on all this.
No worries! I'm sure we all understand that real life has to come first.

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what you come up with for your own project!
vo1dwalk3r wrote:
Mon 26 Feb 2018, 19:16
Ah, yeah I need to fix some ʃ's. I'm not really sure what to do with orthographizing /dʐ dʑ/; I originally had ⟨ǰ j⟩, but I felt like /dʐ/ was way to common so I switched to ⟨j⟩. Maybe we could do ⟨ǵ⟩ for the palatal, or go back to how it originally was. Probably we should vote on the orthography too, maybe other people can come up with their own romanizations.
I do like <ǰ j> for /d͡ʐ d͡ʑ/, but that's a valid point about the frequency of /d͡ʐ/. Something like /t͡ʂ d͡ʐ t͡ɕ d͡ʑ/ <c j ḱ ǵ> could work. We probably should vote on the orthography, though, seeing as voting is the whole point of collablangs.
vo1dwalk3r wrote:
Mon 26 Feb 2018, 19:16
The parentheses around the -i in the locative singular is there because it's constructed both ways, with and without. In fact there are a lot of places where we should vote on which noun ending we're going to use (using this for the various reconstructions):
Spoiler:
Genitive singular (thematic): -ī, -osyo
Locative singular: -i, -Ø
Locative singular (thematic): -oy, -ey
Accusative plural: -ms, -ns
Genitive plural: -om, -ōm, -oHom
Dative plural: -bʰos, -mos
Ah, got it! Yeah, we should definitely vote on those.
vo1dwalk3r wrote:
Mon 26 Feb 2018, 19:16
Alternatively, it might be interesting to do something slightly differently than what's reconstructed.
What do you mean?
vo1dwalk3r wrote:
Mon 26 Feb 2018, 19:16
The laryngeal lengthening rule does apply to both syllabic consonants and vowels, I should've specified. Otherwise, I think I would apply the iy > ī rule intervocalically but we could vote on that. I'm also not super sure about syllable boundaries, but what you have seems reasonable, although the stresses would shift. I would've had: /ˈoɪ̯.nas dwoː ˈtriː.as ˈka.two.ras ˈpin.ka switʂ ˈsapt.mǝ ˈatʂ.toːʊ̯ ˈniʊ̯.nǝ ˈdiʂ.mǝ/.

One last thing: apparently the PIE pitch accent is hard to reconstruct and Ancient Greek and Sanskrit sometimes disagree on where it was located. We have a couple of options, we could not worry about it and just go with the reconstructions given, try to align to one of the two, or not align exactly with either in all cases (I don't think this is too much of a problem though in most cases). Once we get these last details all figured out I'll probably start my declensions document over so it's all consistent.
Oh, I totally forgot about the stress shifts. And yeah, we certainly have a lot to think about.
Hominid
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat 20 May 2017, 22:33

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Hominid » Sat 03 Mar 2018, 01:17

Isn't the orthography purely to make it easier for us to read? It's realistically not at the stage where it would be written down, let alone in the Latin alphabet.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by shimobaatar » Sat 03 Mar 2018, 01:24

Of course.

I've kind of been thinking of it as the transcription system that modern scholars might use in-world when studying this stage of the language.
Cavaliers327
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue 14 Mar 2017, 23:21

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by Cavaliers327 » Sat 03 Mar 2018, 19:54

Results:
Spoiler:

36. Case Development
Spoiler:
a. We develop the comitative. But how?
37. Morphosyntactic Realignment
Spoiler:
a. Develop Split Ergativity. How does this happen?
38. Clusters...
Spoiler:
Frislander's Suggestion/(a - θs, t͡ʃθs, tx > t͡s t͡ʃt tx~tʰ)
39. Vowel Shift soon...
Spoiler:
b. No
40. Consider losing Grammatical Gender in the Future?
Spoiler:
a. Yes
New Questions ( Regularizing PIE Case Suffixes) (Which one do we use?)
Spoiler:
41. Genitive Singular (thematic)
a. -ī
b. -osyo


42. Locative Singular
a. -i
b. -Ø

43. Locative Singular(thematic)
a. -oy
b. -ey

44. Accusative Plural
a. -ms
b.-ns

45. Genitive Plural
a. -om
b. -ōm
c. -oHom
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: New Weekly Indo European Collablang

Post by shimobaatar » Sat 03 Mar 2018, 20:02

41: a
42: a
43: a
44: b
45: b
Post Reply