(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 22:46

I'd say Wikipedia was just overspecifying. /j/ is /j/, regardless of where it came from, unless there is another sound that they transcribe the same way.
yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 02:04

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 22:52

I'm reposting a question that I, initially, edited into my last post to make sure it gets answered. Should allophony be formatted (a) [allophone] of /parent phoneme/ <location> /causal phoneme/ or (b) [allophone] of [parent phone] <location> [causal phone]?

Are [s̪→z̪] by assimilation before [z̪], and vice-versa, allophonic?
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 05:36

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
Sun 19 Aug 2018, 22:52
I'm reposting a question that I, initially, edited into my last post to make sure it gets answered. Should allophony be formatted (a) [allophone] of /parent phoneme/ <location> /causal phoneme/ or (b) [allophone] of [parent phone] <location> [causal phone]?
The latter. The allophone's environment should be defined phonetically, not phonemically.

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Are [s̪→z̪] by assimilation before [z̪], and vice-versa, allophonic?
It depends. Is there a contrast between [s̪] and [z̪] in other environments?
yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 02:04

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 08:32

Okay on the allophony issue. And, and assimilation's the only time the fortis-lenis pairs lose contrast.
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on Mon 20 Aug 2018, 19:17, edited 2 times in total.
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 16:40

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
Mon 20 Aug 2018, 08:32
Okay on the allophony issue. And, and assimilation's the only time the fortis-lenis pairs lose contrast.
Then that's a phonemic change. Whenever one phone changes to a contrasting phone, that's phonemic.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 17:46

What’s ‘“and, and” assimilation’?
yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 02:04

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 19:18

Didn't realize the second "and" snuck in there somehow.
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 02:42

Is the “and” a clausal conjunction? Or is “‘and’ assimilation” a type of assimilation?
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10695
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 03:15

eldin raigmore wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 02:42
Is the “and” a clausal conjunction? Or is “‘and’ assimilation” a type of assimilation?
What do you think is more likely?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 05:33

shimobaatar wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 03:15
eldin raigmore wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 02:42
Is the “and” a clausal conjunction? Or is “‘and’ assimilation” a type of assimilation?
What do you think is more likely?
Now that I know he didn’t mean “and and” — a construction some classical/biblical languages used for “also” —
I’m thinking it’s something like Hebrew’s wa-consecutive.
That seems to me the most Occamesque hypothesis.
I just don’t quite get how “assimilation” is involved.

Not really!
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Tue 21 Aug 2018, 21:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3113
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 08:23

eldin raigmore wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 05:33
shimobaatar wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 03:15
eldin raigmore wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 02:42
Is the “and” a clausal conjunction? Or is “‘and’ assimilation” a type of assimilation?
What do you think is more likely?
Now that I know he didn’t mean “and and” — a construction some classical/biblical languages used for “also” —
I’m thinking it’s something like Hebrew’s wa-consecutive.
That seems to me the most Occamesque hypothesis.
I just don’t quite get how “assimilation” is involved.

Not really!
Might be worth making that "not really" a little more, well, visible, because I honestly thought you were trolling over an obvious typo... :roll:
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2444
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 10:49

Could construction [copula + active participle] have the antipassive meaning?

say
"I wrote poem" is the normal active clause that presupposes some kind of an object.
"I am writer [poem]" is an antipassive clause that doesn't presuppose an object.

The question is not about English. The pseudo-clauses are a bit odd.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4466
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 11:49

Omzinesý wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 10:49
Could construction [copula + active participle] have the antipassive meaning?

say
"I wrote poem" is the normal active clause that presupposes some kind of an object.
"I am writer [poem]" is an antipassive clause that doesn't presuppose an object.

The question is not about English. The pseudo-clauses are a bit odd.
I think if you read up on antipassives you will find that they often have some aspectual meaning component. This is often imperfective, gnomic, habitual or something similar. Similarly, action nominalizations often have an imperfective meaning. Agent nominalizations are even more similar in that they often encode things that are generally true or habits.
tl;dr: yes [:)]
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]
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10695
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 12:24

sangi39 wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 08:23
eldin raigmore wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 05:33
shimobaatar wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 03:15
eldin raigmore wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 02:42
Is the “and” a clausal conjunction? Or is “‘and’ assimilation” a type of assimilation?
What do you think is more likely?
Now that I know he didn’t mean “and and” — a construction some classical/biblical languages used for “also” —
I’m thinking it’s something like Hebrew’s wa-consecutive.
That seems to me the most Occamesque hypothesis.
I just don’t quite get how “assimilation” is involved.

Not really!
Might be worth making that "not really" a little more, well, visible, because I honestly thought you were trolling over an obvious typo... :roll:
[+1]
yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 02:04

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 16:20

I didn't quote the Dormouse's post because mine was immediately after it. Therefore, the nature of the initial "and" would have been evident without the second "and" there. I say the conversation about my honest oversight ends here so we can get back to using the topic properly.

While Wikipedia's article on prenasalized consonants implies that analyses such as [ⁿf] are plausible, its article on nasal release focuses on stops, such as [dⁿ]. Are analyses such as [z̪ᵐ] plausible? The example is from jarkvazma, which is—currently—analyzed as [ˈʝɑr̩.kvɑ.z̪m̪ɑ].
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4466
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 17:16

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 16:20
While Wikipedia's article on prenasalized consonants implies that analyses such as [ⁿf] are plausible, its article on nasal release focuses on stops, such as [dⁿ]. Are analyses such as [z̪ᵐ] plausible? The example is from jarkvazma, which is—currently—analyzed as [ˈʝɑr̩.kvɑ.z̪m̪ɑ].
I think nasal relase should have the same place of articulation as the closure. Otherwise, it does not make much sense, phonetically speaking. Phonologically, it depends on the system. Are there other cluster? If not, that's an argument in favor of /z̪ᵐ/ or /z͡m/. If there are other clusters, the question arises: does [z̪m] act like a cluster or like a simple segment? E.g. you could look at its phonotactic distribution or which phonological rules affect it. It is important to keep phonetic analyses from phonological analyses here. Hope that helps a bit.
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]
yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 02:04

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by yangfiretiger121 » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 18:55

The base syllable structure is (C)(C)V(C), with syllables ending on the vowel whenever possible. (C)(C) may either be a phoneme, such as /s̪:/, or a cluster, such as the current /z̪m̪/ (dental sibilant fricative-labiodental nasal). So, you appear to be saying that [z̪ᵐ]'s implausible, while [fᵐ]'s plausible.
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4466
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 20:29

Well phonoogically it looks like it is a cluster in your conlang from what you have told. The problem with the phonetics is that fricatives usually do not have a release. But this idea is disputed with some people saying that e.g. aspirated fricatives exist and have a release phase. So you could do [fᵐ].
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
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 21:24

shimobaatar wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 03:15
Might be worth making that "not really" a little more, well, visible, because I honestly thought you were trolling over an obvious typo... :roll:
(+@Sangi):

I reviewed this before posting it.
Unfortunately, I think if one merely reads it, without access to my tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures, the first half comes across as defensive.
To compound that misfortune, I can’t see how to fix it.
Except to make the following request:
The second half, or the part from my third point on, comes across as academic IMO.
Try to imagine the first half, or first two points, being delivered in the same academic tone.
Some might find it equally annoying; but at least they’ll be annoyed by the tone I actually intended, rather than one I don’t intend.

—————==========**********—————==========**********

When I read yangfiretiger’s post with the extra “and” in it, I thought it likely a typo.
But I questioned it anyway, for two reasons.

First: I have been a mathematician, a professional computer programmer, a financial auditor, a medical records dogsbody, etc.
I have frequently seen “obvious typos” that turned out not to be errors.
When that happened, “correcting” those “errors” would usually have been not merely bad, but catastrophic.
Most of them were indeed minor errors; but the cost of finding that out was usually trivial compared to the cost of “correcting” something that I just misunderstood, like some kind of human Autocorrect.
An example (not involving me); a foreign man tried to explain to the ER staff that he needed treatment for “homophilia”.
The enlightened psych resident on duty explained that “homophilia” was not a disorder, it was just an orientation; and if the patient had a problem with it, it didn’t qualify as an emergency since hw wasn’t suicidal, so he should make an appointment and come back in a few days.
It turns out “haemophilia” was meant.

Second: in various natural languages, many kinds of allomorphy, and/or morphophonological “stuff”, pop up when more than two conjugands are conjoined by the “same” conjunction.
For all I know, in some such phenomena, the marker is some kind of assimilation.

So I had a question, one I regard as legitimate, when I first asked.

- - - - -

The second time I asked was more akin to perseveration. I wasn’t really concerned any more that there was such a thing as “‘and’ assimilation”; but I had already brought it up, and hadn’t yet had an explicit answer.

Furthermore, in one ‘lect of formal, written English that I was taught, to begin a sentence with a conjunction, was (or is?) questionably grammatical. So* I felt like verifying that it was indeed a conjunction between two clauses, one of which was a sentence in the previous post (by a different poster). It required work on the readers’ part to locate that first conjugand. It was obvious there was another conjugand intended; it was not, IMO, obvious where and what it was.
*Since we’re not really being that formal here, it’s OK to start sentences with conjunctions like “and” and “so” and “since”. It’s just that it catches my attention.

———++++++======++++++———++++++======++++++

There’s a thread somewhere—— I think on the CBB —— that discusses where, and how many, coordinating conjunctions various languages use, to conjoin two or three or more than three conjugands.
Like Latin’s enclitic “-que” form of “et”.
Or some older British English writers’ non-dual use of “both”; e.g. “Both lions, tigers, bears, and wolves”.

Would anyone care to talk about that aspect of their conlang?
Maybe I’ll find that thread and post some more questions, or some more examples, or some clarification of the questions and/or examples already there.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Tue 21 Aug 2018, 21:34, edited 2 times in total.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10695
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 21:32

eldin raigmore wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 21:24
shimobaatar wrote:
Tue 21 Aug 2018, 03:15
Might be worth making that "not really" a little more, well, visible, because I honestly thought you were trolling over an obvious typo... :roll:
(+@Sangi):
The quote is misattributed. sangi39 said that.
Post Reply