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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » Mon 14 May 2018, 22:00

eldin raigmore wrote:
Mon 14 May 2018, 21:24
k1234567890y wrote:
Fri 11 May 2018, 03:20
Void wrote:
Thu 10 May 2018, 22:58
Can a nominative-accusative language derive from an absolutive-ergative proto-language?

Theoretically by making the passive tense into a regular present one, by some other eldritch means?
yes, it is said that some Aleut-Eskimo languages are evolving into nominative languages. maybe you can do this: ergative-absolutive > neutral > nominative-accusative with differential object marking > full nominative-accusative language

as for the "making the passive tense into a regular present one, by some other eldritch means?" part, I am not sure.
Is eldritch a voice? Or a case?
It's an alignment, one where there is no case marking, or arguments, or verbs, or words of any kind because the speaker shed eons ago the mortal imperfection that is language.

In any case, I think the sentence was meant to read: Theoretically by making the passive voice into a regular active one, by some other eldritch means?

I don't know if such a thing is plausible, but I'd be interested to hear what other, more knowledgeable people think.
User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 04:47
Contact:

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

Post by k1234567890y » Mon 14 May 2018, 22:46

eldin raigmore wrote:
Mon 14 May 2018, 21:24
k1234567890y wrote:
Fri 11 May 2018, 03:20
Void wrote:
Thu 10 May 2018, 22:58
Can a nominative-accusative language derive from an absolutive-ergative proto-language?

Theoretically by making the passive tense into a regular present one, by some other eldritch means?
yes, it is said that some Aleut-Eskimo languages are evolving into nominative languages. maybe you can do this: ergative-absolutive > neutral > nominative-accusative with differential object marking > full nominative-accusative language

as for the "making the passive tense into a regular present one, by some other eldritch means?" part, I am not sure.
Is eldritch a voice? Or a case?
uncertain.

Also it seems that the loss of ergativity of Greenlandic does not involve passivization...moreover, I guess languages that has loss ergativity would make use of some verbs as the aux verb for the new passive voice
私のアツい人工言語活動!言カツ!始まります!!
User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 04:47
Contact:

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

Post by k1234567890y » Mon 14 May 2018, 22:48

however, there are, at least in my memory, languages where the emergence of the ergativity is through the regularization of the original passive voice.
Last edited by k1234567890y on Tue 15 May 2018, 10:29, edited 1 time in total.
私のアツい人工言語活動!言カツ!始まります!!
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9608
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » Mon 14 May 2018, 22:52

eldin raigmore wrote:
Mon 14 May 2018, 21:24
k1234567890y wrote:
Fri 11 May 2018, 03:20
Void wrote:
Thu 10 May 2018, 22:58
Can a nominative-accusative language derive from an absolutive-ergative proto-language?

Theoretically by making the passive tense into a regular present one, by some other eldritch means?
yes, it is said that some Aleut-Eskimo languages are evolving into nominative languages. maybe you can do this: ergative-absolutive > neutral > nominative-accusative with differential object marking > full nominative-accusative language

as for the "making the passive tense into a regular present one, by some other eldritch means?" part, I am not sure.
Is eldritch a voice? Or a case?
In case you're not making a joke.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » Tue 15 May 2018, 00:18

Correction: eldritch.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9608
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » Tue 15 May 2018, 00:41

I'm afraid I don't understand your correction.
User avatar
alynnidalar
roman
roman
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun 17 Aug 2014, 02:22
Location: Michigan, USA

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

Post by alynnidalar » Tue 15 May 2018, 03:27

Discworld joke, I believe, although I can't for the life of me remember the original context.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2871
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » Tue 15 May 2018, 15:15

alynnidalar wrote:
Tue 15 May 2018, 03:27
Discworld joke, I believe, although I can't for the life of me remember the original context.
Yeah, it's a recurring joke in the Discworld books. IIRC, it started with Cohen the Barbarian thinking that "eldritch", in reference to the Luggage, meant "oblong", and it's carried on from there. I think the Nac Mac Feegle use "eldritch" for both meanings in the Tiffany Aching books.
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
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5962
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 15 May 2018, 15:54

I did mean it as a joke; but the jokes you folks thought I meant seem funnier to me than the joke I actually meant!

I was thinking of Starotsin’s (do I have the right guy?) 5(?)-case system in which he(?) calls the fifth(?) case “means”*.
And we’d been asking about voice.
The first response made me think “eldritch” might be a mood; but I was ninjaed before I could post about it!

*(short for “means, method, or manner”, IIANM; though if i recall correctly as i inderstand it that’s not necessarily all.)
Last edited by eldin raigmore on Tue 15 May 2018, 16:57, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5962
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 15 May 2018, 15:58

I have a serious quick question.

If a speaking species had their tongues rooted at the fronts of their mouths, like frogs; how would that change their set of possible points-of-articulation?
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

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

Post by Lambuzhao » Tue 15 May 2018, 17:03

Would such a creature have lips like us, or not, more like frogs?
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

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

Post by Lambuzhao » Tue 15 May 2018, 17:08

Also, do these postulated speakers have nasal passages?

If so, are they separate from the oral cavity, as with humans, or do their nasal passage empty right into their oral cavity, like frogs?
User avatar
Pabappa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » Tue 15 May 2018, 17:30

You can do anything you want. You could have 952 contrasting places of articulation based on how the teeth are oriented in each segment of each phoneme.

Parrots have no lips or nose and not much of a tongue, yet they can produce every sound a human can make and a lot more of their own. There's a species in the Amazon rainforest that uses camera click sounds to find each other ..... although now that smartphones are ascendant they may have already moved on to a new inventory consisting of Brazilian pop songs interrupted by loud ringing sounds.

Dolphins apparently can also make all human sounds, but they're limited to high frequencies so they all sound the same to us, even if we don't to them.

All you need's a history of verbal communication for a large phoneme inventory to appear. Did this species co-evolve with humans?
Image
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5962
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 15 May 2018, 20:33

Thanks, guys!

I had been imagining they were very like frogs.
So, no bird-like syringes (is that the plural of syrinx?).

No lips and not very significant teeth, unless I’m wrong about frogs.

—— But I don’t want to limit our imaginations too soon; as long as they can flip out their tongues like frogs, ...

If they’Re very much batrachian, maybe they vocalize with a sack they inflate under their chins, like peepers and pipers and bullfrogs. So maybe only the males could talk.

And I’m not sure their ears would be as sensitive to differences in pitch, or to as broad a range of pitches, as human ears.
pbastronaut
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat 17 Feb 2018, 13:02

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

Post by pbastronaut » Wed 16 May 2018, 15:58

I have a category of nouns in one of my languages which is ... kinda animacy? It's for broad descriptors of animals (like "man, horse, dog, boy", etc.), but does not include sessile animals, plants, supernatural beings and deities, or automata, or more specific or technical (from an animal husbandry point-of-view) terms.

The language declines gender, number and case, but animacy works slighly different. It forces an umlaut on the root and replaces some inflected suffixes, but not all of them. It also doesn't force any agreement. Animacy is only reflected on the noun itself, but not on determiners or adjectives (unlike all the other noun classes). Furthermore, it's subject to limitations based on the phonetic structure of the root, so some animate nouns might not even be marked as animate at all.

So my questions are:
  1. Is "animacy" the right term for this?
  2. Does this count as a gender, or something else? Is it even technically a noun class?
User avatar
k1234567890y
runic
runic
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat 04 Jan 2014, 04:47
Contact:

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

Post by k1234567890y » Wed 16 May 2018, 16:06

I guess yes...and different natlangs vary considerably in deciding which nouns are animate...although a general tendency exists.
私のアツい人工言語活動!言カツ!始まります!!
User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu 02 Nov 2017, 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » Wed 16 May 2018, 16:26

How do ejectives/implosives arise in natlangs? Clusters of stop/fricative/affricate and a glottal stop? What are some ways the change to pulmonic sounds as languages evolve?
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » Wed 16 May 2018, 19:13

pbastronaut wrote:
Wed 16 May 2018, 15:58
[*] Does this count as a gender, or something else? Is it even technically a noun class?[/list]
I don't think it counts as gender because there is no agreement (not even with pronouns?). Likewise it's not a noun class in the narrow, gender-like sense of the word. However, it is a class of nouns in a broader sense. It appears to be two things, in fact:
- a conjugational class (nouns in this class take (some) different suffixes from others)
- a derivational process (umlaut) to form nouns in that conjugational class from nouns that are outside it.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2356
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » Wed 16 May 2018, 19:48

k1234567890y wrote:
Mon 14 May 2018, 22:46
eldin raigmore wrote:
Mon 14 May 2018, 21:24
k1234567890y wrote:
Fri 11 May 2018, 03:20
Void wrote:
Thu 10 May 2018, 22:58
Can a nominative-accusative language derive from an absolutive-ergative proto-language?

Theoretically by making the passive tense into a regular present one, by some other eldritch means?
yes, it is said that some Aleut-Eskimo languages are evolving into nominative languages. maybe you can do this: ergative-absolutive > neutral > nominative-accusative with differential object marking > full nominative-accusative language

as for the "making the passive tense into a regular present one, by some other eldritch means?" part, I am not sure.
Is eldritch a voice? Or a case?
uncertain.

Also it seems that the loss of ergativity of Greenlandic does not involve passivization...moreover, I guess languages that has loss ergativity would make use of some verbs as the aux verb for the new passive voice
Ergativity usually arises from passive-like constructions.
Similarly accusativity arises from antipassive-like constructions.

Modern Georgian, for example is a split-alignment language. Old Georgian is Ergative.
The imperfective TAMs that utilize NOM-ACC aligmnent has a suffix that is usually called stem augment in Georgian grammars, I think. It is an old antipassive marker. The imperfective TAMs mark the direct and indirect objects with the same case (usually called Dative) with which the perfective TAMs only mark indirect objects. So in old georgian it was used for marking the adjunct of antipassive "to shoot towards the bear".

Modern Germanic and Romance languages developed new perfects with verb 'have'. They happen to have a transitive 'have' verb. But if the perfects had been developed from an intransitive 'have', SAE would have ergative perfects "For me is the window closed" meaning 'I have closed the window'.

Languages can well have derived voices (passives and antipassive) regardless of the aligment. Languages with all alignments can also lack the derived voices altogether.
User avatar
Shemtov
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2439
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

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

Post by Shemtov » Thu 17 May 2018, 16:34

How can voice work in a split-S system?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
Post Reply