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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu 02 Nov 2017, 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 15:07

What case would a noun be in in an ergative language when in a title(not in a full sentence)?

I.E: The book of the world.

What case should I put book in?
User avatar
Zekoslav
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat 07 Oct 2017, 15:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 15:34

Considering that in ergative languages, absolutive is generally the unmarked case, I'd guess titles would be in the absolutive. Although, it might depend on how your conculture (if relevant) comes up with titles - I wish I knew more about that in other real-world cultures (I still think the unmarked case should be the default)!
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation
User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu 02 Nov 2017, 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 15:46

Zekoslav wrote:
Fri 05 Oct 2018, 15:34
Considering that in ergative languages, absolutive is generally the unmarked case, I'd guess titles would be in the absolutive. Although, it might depend on how your conculture (if relevant) comes up with titles - I wish I knew more about that in other real-world cultures (I still think the unmarked case should be the default)!
Thanks!
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 16:41

The unmarked case is obviously most natural as a default; however, I'd begin by question your assumptions. What is a "title", and why do your people have them? For instance, book titles that just explain what the book is about may well use the dative or the like ("[on/about] the origin-DAT of species").

If the title functions as a sort of proferative deictic, or is mainly found in lists, there may be particular constructions associated with those procedures.
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 16:59

There are also title formulas based on clauses. Chapter titles in older books occasionally take the form: "In which [such-and-such happens]"
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4462
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 17:10

Salmoneus wrote:
Fri 05 Oct 2018, 16:41
The unmarked case is obviously most natural as a default; however, I'd begin by question your assumptions. What is a "title", and why do your people have them? For instance, book titles that just explain what the book is about may well use the dative or the like ("[on/about] the origin-DAT of species").

If the title functions as a sort of proferative deictic, or is mainly found in lists, there may be particular constructions associated with those procedures.
Just wanted to add, that many older Geman titles (in Latin obviously [:D] ) were genitive case constructions (kind of), because they started with de.
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
CarsonDaConlanger
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu 02 Nov 2017, 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 17:20

Creyeditor wrote:
Fri 05 Oct 2018, 17:10
Salmoneus wrote:
Fri 05 Oct 2018, 16:41
The unmarked case is obviously most natural as a default; however, I'd begin by question your assumptions. What is a "title", and why do your people have them? For instance, book titles that just explain what the book is about may well use the dative or the like ("[on/about] the origin-DAT of species").

If the title functions as a sort of proferative deictic, or is mainly found in lists, there may be particular constructions associated with those procedures.
Just wanted to add, that many older Geman titles (in Latin obviously [:D] ) were genitive case constructions (kind of), because they started with de.
That actually might work well, since I use postpositions for cases, so I can just put it after the whole name.
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 » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 17:54

I'm making a Germanic lang.

It has sound changes
/s/ -> /ʃ/
/θ/ -> /s/

I'd like to preserve <s> as the letter for /ʃ/. How could /s/ be written? I don't like <þ>.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10660
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 17:59

<sz>.
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 18:03

<ß>.

Ess-zed
Eszett
Same diff
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » Fri 05 Oct 2018, 18:37

Depends where it's spoken! And what other letters are used, and how!

Options include s-cedilla, s-acute, s-dot or more fancifully s-tilde; or c, z, q or x; or ts, or ds, or th; or ss, sc, sz, sth, ths, zs or cs; or c-acute, c-dot, c-cedilla; or d, or d-bar or eth or sd, or....
Porphyrogenitos
sinic
sinic
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat 21 Jul 2012, 07:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

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

Post by Porphyrogenitos » Sat 06 Oct 2018, 01:51

Also, it depends on when the sound change happened - before or after the orthography was established. If the orthography was established before the sound change, it would likely just keep using the same symbols as before, but with the shifted sound values. So we might see:

þ = [θ]
s = [s]

s θ > ʃ s

þ = [s]
s = [ʃ]

Considering a broad European context, and without knowing any other information about the language or orthography, I'd say that <z> and <ç> are the most likely representations for a [θ] that later became [s]
Odkidstr
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed 27 May 2015, 19:26

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

Post by Odkidstr » Sat 06 Oct 2018, 04:07

Hopefully this makes sense (and sorry if my terminology is off):

I'm wondering what languages do when quoting a person in writing or relaying what someone has said. For instance, in English you can say: "Eat this," said the man vs "Eat this," the man said vs The man said "eat this." If I'm understanding correctly, the quote itself as a clause would be the object of the verb "to say." In English, it appears that we typically front the quote so that the first two examples are more common than the latter, and it seems that word order can vary quite a bit too. How do other languages handle this? Is it typical to front the quote for a verb such as "say" in languages, or does it normally occur in-situ?

Also another question, this time about plural marking. If a language has suffixing case, it is normal for the plural suffix to come before the case suffix, correct? Or is it also possible for the suffix to be case-plural marking? I am aware of fusion based markings too, but that's not what I'm looking for. Would a postposition for plural marking seem odd if case was suffixed to the noun? Aside from vowel change, adpositions, and affixes, are there any unique or uncommon ways to mark plurality?
User avatar
Pabappa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » Sat 06 Oct 2018, 04:59

It would be odd for a plural marker to appear after a case marker, yes. Maybe the morpheme that becomes the plural marker can itself have different forms for different cases, though you'd said you didn't want fusion and that setup would likely cause fusion.
Image
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 » Sat 06 Oct 2018, 21:45

Porphyrogenitos wrote:
Sat 06 Oct 2018, 01:51
Also, it depends on when the sound change happened - before or after the orthography was established. If the orthography was established before the sound change, it would likely just keep using the same symbols as before, but with the shifted sound values. So we might see:

þ = [θ]
s =

s θ > ʃ s

þ =
s = [ʃ]

Considering a broad European context, and without knowing any other information about the language or orthography, I'd say that <z> and <ç> are the most likely representations for a [θ] that later became


I always forget there is <ç> for <c> before back vowels.
But if /s/ doesn't derive from /k/ they are a bit odd. Of course the orthography can just mirror those of other languages.
User avatar
Zekoslav
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat 07 Oct 2017, 15:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » Sun 07 Oct 2018, 09:10

Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation
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 07 Oct 2018, 09:46

Zekoslav wrote:
Sun 07 Oct 2018, 09:10
Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.
Was German /ts/ <z> really a sibilant in some state of the language? Or do I misunderstood you.
holbuzvala
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017, 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » Sun 07 Oct 2018, 12:47

Why is it that in French, most adjectives follow nouns, but (what I would describe as) 'generic' adjectives preceed the nouns they describe?
User avatar
Pabappa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » Sun 07 Oct 2018, 13:53

Omzinesý wrote:
Sun 07 Oct 2018, 09:46
Zekoslav wrote:
Sun 07 Oct 2018, 09:10
Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.
Was German /ts/ <z> really a sibilant in some state of the language? Or do I misunderstood you.
I think the spelling has changed. Plain <z> was a fricative, <zz> was an affricate, and much of what is <tz> today was <zz> then.apparently the spelling was just loose .... They used z for both fricatives and affricates, both single and double.
Image
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 07 Oct 2018, 14:04

Pabappa wrote:
Sun 07 Oct 2018, 13:53
Omzinesý wrote:
Sun 07 Oct 2018, 09:46
Zekoslav wrote:
Sun 07 Oct 2018, 09:10
Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.
Was German /ts/ <z> really a sibilant in some state of the language? Or do I misunderstood you.
I think the spelling has changed. Plain <z> was a fricative, <zz> was an affricate, and much of what is <tz> today was <zz> then.apparently the spelling was just loose .... They used z for both fricatives and affricates, both single and double.
OK, now I see. You mean inter-vocally.
Swedish katt German Katze
Swedish fatta German fassen
Swedish heta German heißen
Post Reply