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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
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 » Sun 16 Jul 2017, 20:49

Shemtov wrote:
Micamo wrote:
Shemtov wrote:Is it totally unnatauralistic for a lnaguge to have an enclitic that attaches itself to a conjugated verb, which allows another verb to go unconjugated while taking the conjugation of the first; ie the opposite of converbs?
Examples?
Nok-oo-ku bas
speak-1P-because hate
"I spoke because I hated"

Nok-oo-bu bas
speak-1P-WHILE hate
"I spoke while I hated"
If we tread 'hate' as a noun, there could be an applicative.
speak-SG1-APPL.CAUSE hatred

Action-nominals can be heads of complex constructions.
stab-SG1-SG2-APPL.CAUSE [(SG2.by-agent) pig.GEN steal(AN)]
User avatar
kiwikami
mind
mind
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat 26 May 2012, 16:24
Location: the first star to the right and straight on 'till mid-afternoon

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

Post by kiwikami » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 05:47

Two related questions. Question one, does this make any sense as a vowel system? Phonology is not my forte.

i u
e ø o
ɜ
æ ɑ

I'd use schwa instead of /ɜ/, but this puts it a little further away from the rather busy mid-to-close-mid range. Question two, on a scale from Fine to Excessive-But-Believable to Please Stop (I'm aiming for somewhere between the latter two)... opinions on the following consonant inventory? Things that would probably logically be here but aren't? Things that don't belong?

p̺ p̺ʲ p̺ʰ p̺ʲʰ p pʲ pʰ pʲʰ pˣ t tʲ tʰ tʲʰ tʷ tʷʰ tˣ k kʲ kʰ kʲʰ kʷ kʷʰ kˣ k͡p ʔ
p̺ʼ p̺ʲʼ pʼ pʲʼ tʼ tʲʼ tʷʼ kʼ kʲʼ kʷʼ
m mʲ mʷ n nʲ nʷ ŋ ŋʲ ŋʷ ŋ͡m
ɬ ɬʲ ɬʷ
p͡f t͡s t͡ɬ k͡x
p͡fʼ t͡sʼt͡ɬʼ k͡xʼ
ʍ ʍʲ ʍˣ ɹ̥ ɹ̥ʷ ɹ̥ʲ ɹ̥ˣ j̊
!

The /p̺/ series are linguolabials. Other fricatives would show up through allophony, as would voiced approximants; /ɬ/ is just there because of tradition. That sad, lonely click doesn't belong, I am aware, but it is the most important part. It is the click that holds the universe together. I'd tell you it had allophones but I'd be lying.
Last edited by kiwikami on Mon 17 Jul 2017, 08:16, edited 1 time in total.
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4644
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 06:58

kiwikami wrote:Question one, does this make any sense as a vowel system?

i u
e ø o
ɜ
æ ɑ
It is unusual, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know of any natlangs with that exact combo, but the /ø/ in Hopi shows that strange things happen. As a lover of symmetry myself, I'd probably have /œ ɜ/, /œ ʌ/ or /ø ɤ/ rather than /ø ɜ/ myself. My conlang Ałýýla has /ɜ y/ if that's interesting to you.

By the way, I really like having /æ ɜ ɑ/ in the lower end of the vowel space. The three form a nice, unorthodox balance there, with a hint of English.

This reply is probably a bit too vague to be helpful.
User avatar
kiwikami
mind
mind
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat 26 May 2012, 16:24
Location: the first star to the right and straight on 'till mid-afternoon

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

Post by kiwikami » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 07:39

DesEsseintes wrote:It is unusual, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know of any natlangs with that exact combo, but the /ø/ in Hopi shows that strange things happen. As a lover of symmetry myself, I'd probably have /œ ɜ/, /œ ʌ/ or /ø ɤ/ rather than /ø ɜ/ myself. My conlang Ałýýla has /ɜ y/ if that's interesting to you.

By the way, I really like having /æ ɜ ɑ/ in the lower end of the vowel space. The three form a nice, unorthodox balance there, with a hint of English.

This reply is probably a bit too vague to be helpful.
Very helpful, actually! I shall consider /œ ɜ/ going forth. Interesting that there's an English-y hint.
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4465
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 10:50

kiwikami wrote:Two related questions. Question one, does this make any sense as a vowel system? Phonology is not my forte.
i u
e ø o
ɜ
æ ɑ
I like it. Reminds me of some Papuan languages. If you were aiming for symetry, you could say that /ø/ phonologically patterns with the high vowels and /ɜ/ phonologically patterns with the mid vowels.

kiwikami wrote: p̺ p̺ʲ p̺ʰ p̺ʲʰ p pʲ pʰ pʲʰ pˣ t tʲ tʰ tʲʰ tʷ tʷʰ tˣ k kʲ kʰ kʲʰ kʷ kʷʰ kˣ k͡p ʔ
p̺ʼ p̺ʲʼ pʼ pʲʼ tʼ tʲʼ tʷʼ kʼ kʲʼ kʷʼ
m mʲ mʷ n nʲ nʷ ŋ ŋʲ ŋʷ ŋ͡m
ɬ ɬʲ ɬʷ
p͡f t͡s t͡ɬ k͡x
p͡fʼ t͡sʼt͡ɬʼ k͡xʼ
ʍ ʍʲ ʍˣ ɹ̥ ɹ̥ʷ ɹ̥ʲ ɹ̥ˣ j̊
!
What exactly is /pˣ/ supposed to mean?

People might say, it's a bit kitchen-sink-y. Let me summarize why: You have 5 POAs (labial, linguolabial, alvelar, velar and labio-velar), two of which are very rare in natlangs and even rarer (if not non-existent) in the same language (I think ..., both occur in languages of Vanuatu...). In addition you have four different secondary articulations (none, palatalized, labialized and ˣ?). Not so unusual in its own, but in combination with the POAs. You also have three different phonations/airstreams (voiceless, aspirated, ejective) one of which is relatively rare in natlangs. And eventually you also have six differnt MOA (plosives, nasals, laterals fricatives, affricates and approximants), two of which are a bit rare and especially rare if you don't have fricatives.

I really like your style of conlanging, so if you ask me, don't worry to much.
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
kiwikami
mind
mind
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat 26 May 2012, 16:24
Location: the first star to the right and straight on 'till mid-afternoon

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

Post by kiwikami » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 13:19

Creyeditor wrote:What exactly is /pˣ/ supposed to mean?
Apologies; ˣ should be ˠ. This was done in the wee hours of the morning without my glasses on. [:D]
Creyeditor wrote:People might say, it's a bit kitchen-sink-y. Let me summarize why: You have 5 POAs (labial, linguolabial, alvelar, velar and labio-velar), two of which are very rare in natlangs and even rarer (if not non-existent) in the same language (I think ..., both occur in languages of Vanuatu...). In addition you have four different secondary articulations (none, palatalized, labialized and ˣ?). Not so unusual in its own, but in combination with the POAs. You also have three different phonations/airstreams (voiceless, aspirated, ejective) one of which is relatively rare in natlangs. And eventually you also have six differnt MOA (plosives, nasals, laterals fricatives, affricates and approximants), two of which are a bit rare and especially rare if you don't have fricatives.
Oh, I'm aware. I'm very aware. This is being trimmed down as I go - it's a starting point. I'm mostly concerned about how to balance things as the trimming occurs, keeping odd gaps in the inventory from showing up, and such. The listing of specific oddnessess is extremely helpful - thank you!

The linguolabials and /ɬ/, as well as that lonely click, are only included because they were in the original form of this monstrosity, which was 100% a kitchen sink (it was my fourth or fifth conlang, I think, and I was excited to have learned the words "morphosyntactic alignment"; it had all the cases. 'Qytshün-Çyŋk was copy-pasted from that thing's notes nearly unchanged except for the actual phonological realizations). The click shall stay, because at this point I just find it amusing in a lonely sort of way.

/ɬ/ might stay, since other fricatives will be showing up a lot intervocalically. The linguolabials will not; tradition can only take a place of articulation so far. I did some playing around with how words would actually look, and ejectives are entirely predictable in where they show up, so we can file those under allophone. The palatalized consonants shall be dropped as I've really had enough of that in Undercommon, and they can always reappear nonphonemically as some interaction of things with /j̊/.

Which brings things to the much more manageable:
p pʰ t tʰ tʷ tʷʰ k kʰ kʷ kʷʰ k͡p ʔ
m mʷ n nʷ ŋ ŋʷ ŋ͡m
ɬ ɬʷ
p͡ɸ t͡s t͡ɬ k͡x
ʍ ɹ̥ ɹ̥ʷ j̊ j̊ʷ
!

New question: Given the running theme here, would it make sense to have /k͡pʰ/, /ŋ͡mʷ/ and labialized versions of /t͡s t͡ɬ k͡x/?

HyPry's consonant inventory has never looked so sane.
Creyeditor wrote:I really like your style of conlanging, so if you ask me, don't worry to much.
What style, throw it at a wall and hope what sticks is a verb, a half-dozen fusional affixes, and /ɬ/? [:P] Thank you!
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

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

Post by Lambuzhao » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 18:28

[quote="kiwikami"]Apologies; ˣ should be ˠ. This was done in the wee hours of the morning without my glasses on. [:D] [quote]

UGGH! I hope they didn't fall behind the bed. That has to be one of the worst karmic tortures ever invented:
waking up in the dark, reaching for glasses in the dark, knocking them down behind the bedstead, and then spending an interminable amt of time groping for them (sam)blindly under the bed. Banging into forgotten junk under bed with head, nose, and/or funny-bone is of course, a hidden bonus. Double-bonus for scraped knuckles. Well, in that unbespectacled state, every 'bonus' is a hidden bonus for sure.

Somewhere, the Stygian Witches watch this with their sole palantirical eye, and just laugh and laugh their throaty corvine laugh.

Anymore, I take the Uncle Shemp route. I grab a pair of my son's old glasses (ooh! everything looks like a blurry barely twinkly version of 'starry night' : Oh Joy!) , and then I can at least fumble derpily into the dim darkness.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... tooges.jpg
User avatar
LinguistCat
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat 06 May 2017, 06:48

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

Post by LinguistCat » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 18:32

doomie wrote:Ok so, when/how did Classical Japanese 好く, a yodan verb according to this, become Modern Japanese 好き(な), a na-adjective? Was it about the same as 嫌ふ/嫌う becoming 嫌い(な), which was also a yodan verb and also became a na-adjective? I suppose since I can see a few ways it could happen, I'm more interested in when the change started and how long (approx) it took. Thanks.
Since my question got buried, here is a second try. I'm finding a lot more about how but not relative time frames.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4465
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 19:11

kiwikami wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:What exactly is /pˣ/ supposed to mean?
Apologies; ˣ should be ˠ. This was done in the wee hours of the morning without my glasses on. [:D]
Makes sense, I suspected something like this.

kiwikami wrote:/ɬ/ might stay, since other fricatives will be showing up a lot intervocalically. The linguolabials will not; tradition can only take a place of articulation so far. I did some playing around with how words would actually look, and ejectives are entirely predictable in where they show up, so we can file those under allophone. The palatalized consonants shall be dropped as I've really had enough of that in Undercommon, and they can always reappear nonphonemically as some interaction of things with /j̊/.

Which brings things to the much more manageable:
p pʰ t tʰ tʷ tʷʰ k kʰ kʷ kʷʰ k͡p ʔ
m mʷ n nʷ ŋ ŋʷ ŋ͡m
ɬ ɬʷ
p͡ɸ t͡s t͡ɬ k͡x
ʍ ɹ̥ ɹ̥ʷ j̊ j̊ʷ
!

New question: Given the running theme here, would it make sense to have /k͡pʰ/, /ŋ͡mʷ/ and labialized versions of /t͡s t͡ɬ k͡x/?
I would argue against having a contrast between /ŋ͡mʷ/ and /ŋ͡m/. From what I read about Vanuatu languages however, the labiovelar could pattern as rounded sounds, so to say /ŋ͡mʷ/ without /ŋ͡m/. /k͡pʰ/ you should add IMHO, it makes it look less lonely in way. Labialised versions of /t͡s t͡ɬ k͡x/ also make sense. You could make them have slightly different POAs phonetically, like e.g. [t͡ʃʷ t͡ɭ̝̊ʷ k͡χʷ].
kiwikami wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:I really like your style of conlanging, so if you ask me, don't worry to much.
What style, throw it at a wall and hope what sticks is a verb, a half-dozen fusional affixes, and /ɬ/? [:P] Thank you!
Well, more like some pieces of art, that look random at first sight, but when you look closer you see the patterns emerging [xP]
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: 10676
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 19:30

doomie wrote:
doomie wrote:Ok so, when/how did Classical Japanese 好く, a yodan verb according to this, become Modern Japanese 好き(な), a na-adjective? Was it about the same as 嫌ふ/嫌う becoming 嫌い(な), which was also a yodan verb and also became a na-adjective? I suppose since I can see a few ways it could happen, I'm more interested in when the change started and how long (approx) it took. Thanks.
Since my question got buried, here is a second try. I'm finding a lot more about how but not relative time frames.
Since this seems to be about a natlang, this would probably be a better place to ask.
User avatar
kiwikami
mind
mind
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat 26 May 2012, 16:24
Location: the first star to the right and straight on 'till mid-afternoon

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

Post by kiwikami » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 20:16

Creyeditor wrote:I would argue against having a contrast between /ŋ͡mʷ/ and /ŋ͡m/. From what I read about Vanuatu languages however, the labiovelar could pattern as rounded sounds, so to say /ŋ͡mʷ/ without /ŋ͡m/. /k͡pʰ/ you should add IMHO, it makes it look less lonely in way. Labialised versions of /t͡s t͡ɬ k͡x/ also make sense. You could make them have slightly different POAs phonetically, like e.g. [t͡ʃʷ t͡ɭ̝̊ʷ k͡χʷ].
That makes quite a lot of sense, and I like the idea of /t͡sʷ t͡ɬʷ k͡xʷ/ [t͡ʃʷ t͡ɭ̝̊ʷ k͡χʷ]. Thanks for the phonological assistance!
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.
User avatar
LinguistCat
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat 06 May 2017, 06:48

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

Post by LinguistCat » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 21:09

shimobaatar wrote: Since this seems to be about a natlang, this would probably be a better place to ask.
True. Sorry [:P] For some reason my brain decided that because I need the info for a conlang, I should put it here, but it is about natlangs at it's base.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10676
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » Mon 17 Jul 2017, 21:21

doomie wrote:
shimobaatar wrote: Since this seems to be about a natlang, this would probably be a better place to ask.
True. Sorry [:P] For some reason my brain decided that because I need the info for a conlang, I should put it here, but it is about natlangs at it's base.
No need to apologize. I totally get your thought process.
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3032
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

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

Post by Frislander » Tue 18 Jul 2017, 18:40

Creyeditor wrote:
kiwikami wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:What exactly is /pˣ/ supposed to mean?
Apologies; ˣ should be ˠ. This was done in the wee hours of the morning without my glasses on. [:D]
Makes sense, I suspected something like this.
I thought they were using it to represent the velar frication found in languages like Lakhota and Navajo either varying allophonically with aspiration or contrasting with it.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4644
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes » Tue 18 Jul 2017, 18:41

Frislander wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:
kiwikami wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:What exactly is /pˣ/ supposed to mean?
Apologies; ˣ should be ˠ. This was done in the wee hours of the morning without my glasses on. [:D]
Makes sense, I suspected something like this.
I thought they were using it to represent the velar frication found in languages like Lakhota and Navajo either varying allophonically with aspiration or contrasting with it.
So did I. And I think some of the phonemes are awesome in their alienness. [B)]
User avatar
kiwikami
mind
mind
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat 26 May 2012, 16:24
Location: the first star to the right and straight on 'till mid-afternoon

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

Post by kiwikami » Tue 18 Jul 2017, 22:06

Frislander wrote:I thought they were using it to represent the velar frication found in languages like Lakhota and Navajo either varying allophonically with aspiration or contrasting with it.
Ack, it seems the perils of confounded diacritics have struck yet again. Yes, the intention was velar frication to contrast with aspiration; looks like ˣ was indeed what I was going for. My notes on paper used ˠ, which was in error, so it seems I managed to accidentally fix the issue when typing this up, only to later mis-correct myself. [:|] Apologies for the confuzzlement.
DesEsseintes wrote:So did I. And I think some of the phonemes are awesome in their alienness. [B)]
Aw, thanks. That's good. Aliens would be the ones speaking this.

Things have expanded again (re-added the velar frication contrast and correspondingly removed the velar affricate) and currently look like this:
p pʰ pˣ t tʰ tˣ k kʰ kˣ k͡p k͡pʰ k͡pˣ ʔ
tʷ tʷʰ tʷˣ kʷ kʷʰ kʷˣ
m mʷ n nʷ ŋ ŋʷ ŋ͡m
p͡ɸ t͡s t͡sʷ t͡ɬ t͡ɬʷ
ʍ r̥ r̥ʷ l̥ l̥ʷ j̊ j̊ʷ
!

The click so far is in zero words and I have no idea what I'm going to do with it; it's mostly just there as a reminder not to remake past mistakes. The Click of Past Mistakes. Maybe it'll appear only in words relating to regret.

New questions:
(1) would it make sense for the velar-fricative-released stops, when lenited, to end up as velarized fricatives? So [t] > , [tʷˣ] > [sˠʷ]. Lenition ended up being a major thing but I'm not a fan of aspirating them, so [t] and [tʰ] both become . That's led to an acceptable level of occassional ambiguity so far, but I'd rather not merge triads of phonemes in intervocalic or word-final position.
(2) The alveolar lateral fricative became an approximant because lenition became rather common, and as much as it hurts my heart (and my avatar) to admit it, I prefer an abundance of /l/ to an abundance of /ɮ/. But the affricate /t͡ɬ/ remains. Is this believable? I feel like a historical [tl̥] cluster could end up as this, especially since I don't think /l̥/ and /ɬ/ contrast in natlangs...?

Apologies for the string of questions; I've been rather at a loss as to how to salvage HyPry's phonology, but I think this is a decent start.
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat 01 Mar 2014, 07:19

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

Post by All4Ɇn » Thu 20 Jul 2017, 21:24

What are some ways a Romance conlang descended from Vulgar Latin could go about forming comparatives and superlatives while still being single words (so not plūs + adjective)?
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4465
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » Thu 20 Jul 2017, 21:52

kiwikami wrote: New questions:
(1) would it make sense for the velar-fricative-released stops, when lenited, to end up as velarized fricatives? So [t] > , [tʷˣ] > [sˠʷ]. Lenition ended up being a major thing but I'm not a fan of aspirating them, so [t] and [tʰ] both become . That's led to an acceptable level of occassional ambiguity so far, but I'd rather not merge triads of phonemes in intervocalic or word-final position.

In general this makes sense to me.
kiwikami wrote: (2) The alveolar lateral fricative became an approximant because lenition became rather common, and as much as it hurts my heart (and my avatar) to admit it, I prefer an abundance of /l/ to an abundance of /ɮ/. But the affricate /t͡ɬ/ remains. Is this believable? I feel like a historical [tl̥] cluster could end up as this, especially since I don't think /l̥/ and /ɬ/ contrast in natlangs...?
/t͡ɬ/ without /ɬ/ is believable, if this was your question.
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
kiwikami
mind
mind
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat 26 May 2012, 16:24
Location: the first star to the right and straight on 'till mid-afternoon

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

Post by kiwikami » Thu 20 Jul 2017, 21:59

Creyeditor wrote:helpful things
Thank ye kindly! [:D]
Last edited by kiwikami on Thu 20 Jul 2017, 23:14, edited 1 time in total.
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

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

Post by Lambuzhao » Thu 20 Jul 2017, 22:41

All4Ɇn wrote:What are some ways a Romance conlang descended from Vulgar Latin could go about forming comparatives and superlatives while still being single words (so not plūs + adjective)?
2 possibilities (at least)

:idea:
A) Just fastforward the regular endings <COMPAR> /ior/ and <SUPER> /issimus/
Now, whether you keep or level interesting /r, l/ oddballs like celerrimus, pulcherriumus, pauperrimus, simíllimus, facillimus, difficillimus, etc is up to you.

This is the solution i took for my :lat: :con: Çedara.

:idea:
B) Fastforward the <COMPAR> /ior/ and use the DEF with the COMPAR to make the SUPER.
Cf. Old :fra: haut altus halçor altior l'halçor altissimus

This exists exactly so in most Romlangs. You'd just have to make sure every ADJ has a COMPAR in /ior/.
Depending on which ADJs you keep from :lat:, recall that, even in Classical Golden Age Old High :lat:, there
were two or three handfuls of ADJs that already were using co-comparatives magis <COMPAR> and maxime <SUPER>. Cf. idoneus, aureus, and other ADJs of 1st and 2nd declensions that end in /eus/ or /ius/

:idea:
C) (¿?) You might do a kind of prefixed comparative &/or superlative using prefixes like /præ/ and/or
/per/.

I can think of præclarus 'very bright' 'very clear', præpotens 'extremely powerful', and perbene 'really well' 'excellent' which existed in :lat:. I am sure other examples of this kind of formation exist. The were used in a kind of absolute superlative way, but they might be jiggered to suit your dastardly plans. [}:D] [B)]

I just perused my mini VOX diccionario :lat: :esp:. It has about 2 dozen with /per/ ***NB: that aren't PTCPs from verbs with a /per/ prefix à la pervenire. It has maybe one more for /præ/.

Another option for sure!
[:D] :!:

Looking back over my answer, seems like A & C are pretty much Classical Latin solutions to your question. [:S]
I would not doubt that some speakers of Vulgar :lat: would have tacked on a /per/ or maybe a /præ/ to give more quasicomparative/quasisuperlative umph to a given ADJ.

Using the comparative to double-duty for the superlative, that sounds closer to a Vulgar solution.
Post Reply