Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4485
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 » 20 Apr 2017 02:30

shimobaatar wrote:
felipesnark wrote:I like the idea of having an etymology for at least some of the inflections.
[+1]

qwed117 wrote:Here's an in depth explanation of the changes the are listed
1. I'd say yea. It sounds like vowel length won't be phonemic, though, or am I reading that wrong?
I'm already creating rules that make it non-phonemic. I'm still deciding on how the vowel lengths really come into play. It might become phonemic if VC# > VːC and VCe> VC, which is still a possibility
shimobaatar wrote: 2. Regarding the introduction of [ə], I'd say yea. Regarding the introduction of [ɨ], however, I'd say nay. If you mean you're thinking of using <t́> in place of <ts>, I'm strongly opposed to that, personally, but if you really like it, then whatever. Finally, I'd say yea to the development of [x ɾ œ y ʉ ɲ].
[ɨ] is already in the language. The question is whether or not the range of the phoneme, and the processes that produce it extend. I don't really want to use <t́>, but I see no way to show /z/ that doesn't create an abomination like g-cedilla. Maybe I'll use orthographic rules with q? I don't particularly like that solution, but it may be the only way to deal with it.
shimobaatar wrote: 5. What do you mean by "adding new forms that are largely allophonic"?
I should be clearer in my terminology. Basically, I want to add forms that are homophonous under certain situations.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3496
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » 20 Apr 2017 13:41

qwed117 wrote:
shimobaatar wrote: 5. What do you mean by "adding new forms that are largely allophonic"?
I should be clearer in my terminology. Basically, I want to add forms that are homophonous under certain situations.
I think the word you may be looking for here is syncretism.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2704
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » 20 Apr 2017 22:09

Should Vålkakil transitive verb pattern be

1. Stem - object marker - subject marker

Lűpan 'I love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta-t 'You love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta
Lűp-ta-me
Lűp-ta-te
Lűp-ta-k

Or
2. Stem - subject marker - object marker

Lűpan (<- lűpa-m-ta) 'I love him/her/it/them.'
Lűpa-t-ta 'You love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta
Lűp-me-ta
Lűp-te-ta
Lűp-k-ta

The paradigms undergo some morpho-phonemic changes, but that gives the basic idea.

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3496
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » 20 Apr 2017 22:16

Omzinesý wrote:Should Vålkakil transitive verb pattern be

1. Stem - object marker - subject marker

Lűpan 'I love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta-t 'You love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta
Lűp-ta-me
Lűp-ta-te
Lűp-ta-k

Or
2. Stem - subject marker - object marker

Lűpan (<- lűpa-m-ta) 'I love him/her/it/them.'
Lűpa-t-ta 'You love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta
Lűp-me-ta
Lűp-te-ta
Lűp-k-ta

The paradigms undergo some morpho-phonemic changes, but that gives the basic idea.
Depends what you want to come first diachronically. I'd say the first looks nicer, but if the subject marking is older I'd put that first instead.

User avatar
MrKrov
banned
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 02:47
Location: /ai/ > /a:/
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by MrKrov » 20 Apr 2017 22:28

They're both justifiable one way or whatever and I also prefer the first.

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 195
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by WeepingElf » 22 Apr 2017 01:09

I'd prefer the first; I have it in Old Albic, too. But as Frislander says, it is a matter of diachrony.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4609
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » 23 Apr 2017 17:56

In the minimalist interpretation, New Limestone has the following consonant inventory:

/m n/
/p t k ʔ/
/s ɬ x/
/r j w/

Now that I've been playing with the inventory for several days, I find I'm not too keen on nasals and want to restrict them, though I'm hesitant to go all the Pawnee way and eliminate them altogether, so I've hit on a possible solution.

There will be no phonemes /m n/ but geminate /w r/ manifest as mm nn. These also occur word-initially but simplify to m n. Thus all of m n w are distinguished word-initially (single r elides in that position), but medially they are in complementary distribution depending on length. This will be apparent when prefixes occur.

/riiwa/ → iiwa
/a + riiwa/ → ariiwa
/rriiwa/ → niiwa
/a + rriiwa/ → anniiwa

/watsiri/ → watsiri
/a + watsiri/ → awatsiri
/wwatsiri/ → matsiri
/a + wwatsiri/ → ammatsiri
etc.

This does have the wonderful benefit of reducing the consonant inventory to ten segments, but I will lose out on word forms like áínimiiwa.

Y/N?

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3496
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » 23 Apr 2017 20:13

I say yay: it's an interesting touch, and it pulls your language away from being mainly Blackfoot in a more Siouan direction.

Also if you're going to permit underlying word-initial geminates for the sonorants, do you plan to do so for the other consonants as well?

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4609
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » 23 Apr 2017 22:55

Frislander wrote:I say yay: it's an interesting touch, and it pulls your language away from being mainly Blackfoot in a more Caddoan direction.

Also if you're going to permit underlying word-initial geminates for the sonorants, do you plan to do so for the other consonants as well?
Yes, or rather maybe it's a bit more complex.

In fact, what may be happening is that there is actually an underlying initial vowel that gets elided when the following consonant is a geminate s ł x r y w (so /rriiwa/ is sth like /Vrriiwa/ rather, but I don't know the quality of V). Details remain to be worked out if I choose to go for this option, but I think I will.

Curious: what do you find Siouan about the idea?
Edit: Oh, nevermind! I just realised you're referring to the allophones of glides in langs like Crow and Hidatsa.

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 216
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by holbuzvala » 24 Apr 2017 17:41

So I have a series of prefixes with determinative meanings (this, that, query, any-, all-, etc.), and suffixes relating to my noun classes and a few other things (human, animate, inanimate, time etc.). They (mostly) canont exist on their own and combine as such: query-human = who? ; distal-human = him ; query-time = when? , proximal-time = now ; etc.

The full list is as follows:
"Prefixes" : proximal, distal, further distal, query, all-, any-

"Suffixes" : human, animate, inanimate, group/collective, abstract, location, time, method

However, I have adjectives following nouns, and subject and object verb prefixes (and SOV word order, mostly). Thus, would it make more sense to have the determinative "prefixes" as suffixes and vice versa?

Yay = change the prefixes to suffixes and vice versa
Nay = keep it as it is

User avatar
cedh
MVP
MVP
Posts: 377
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by cedh » 24 Apr 2017 20:49

Crosslinguistically, adjectives following nouns, and subject and object verb prefixes usually go with VO order (VSO, VOS, SVO), so if your language uses mostly SOV, it is typologically mixed already. Preposed determiners tend to go with VO order too, which makes your current combined pronouns morphologically consistent with the verbal person prefixes. On the other hand, if you analyse them as compounds of a deictic adjective and a semantically vague head noun, they'd be head-final, which would be consistent with basic OV order. So I think they do fit in as they are. But of course, if you swapped them around they would still fit in with both basic typologies depending on analysis, only the other way around. Accordingly you're basically free to decide whatever you like better.

(In case you plan on having a historical basis for your conlang, it might be interesting to do some research which direction of development fits better with your grammar - a formerly head-initial language starting to shift towards a head-final profile, or the other way around. I can't say offhand. But if you choose one of these options, it might turn out that one of the pronoun variants fits much better than the other.)

((If you really want a vote from me: I'd personally say nay.))

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3496
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » 24 Apr 2017 21:24

cedh wrote:adjectives following nouns
Apparently this is actually less of a trend than thought

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1882
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by loglorn » 25 Apr 2017 00:03

If there's no diachrony involved, second, because it looks way nicer IMO. If there is a diachrony, then as everyone said follow it.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 216
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by holbuzvala » 25 Apr 2017 16:15

Awesome. I'll stick with the way it is then.

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 216
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by holbuzvala » 25 Apr 2017 17:03

Another yay or nay. Compare the following

Key: n1 = human noun class; n3 = inanimate noun class; 'ind.obj' = indirect object; 'oblq' = oblique (non accusative)

1.
Bekï dada-k gumna ki-ta-ki-hala
BECKY FATHER-oblq GUMNA n1.sub-n3.obj-n1.ind.obj-GIVE
Becky gave a gumna to her father.

2.
Bekï šfödï (ben) dada-k ki-ta-sata
BECKY COAT (TO/FOR) FATHER-oblq n1.sub-n3.obj-MAKE
Becky made a coat for her father.

In 1, the verb is ditransitive so must have the prefix denoting both the object and indirect object (even if not specified elsewhere: Bekï kitakihala = Becky gave (something to someone)). But in 2, the verb is not ditransitive, so there is not the indirect object prefix on it. My question is, should I include the 'to/for' preposition in 2, or leave the word 'father' just in the oblique case?

Yay = keep is as the bare oblique
Nay = add the preposition 'to/for'

User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Lao Kou » 25 Apr 2017 17:19

holbuzvala wrote:Key: n1 = human noun class; n3 = inanimate noun class; 'ind.obj' = indirect object; 'oblq' = oblique (non accusative)

1.
Bekï dada-k gumna ki-ta-ki-hala
BECKY FATHER-oblq GUMNA n1.sub-n3.obj-n1.ind.obj-GIVE
Becky gave a gumna to her father.

2.
Bekï šfödï (ben) dada-k ki-ta-sata
BECKY COAT (TO/FOR) FATHER-oblq n1.sub-n3.obj-MAKE
Becky made a coat for her father.

In 1, the verb is ditransitive so must have the prefix denoting both the object and indirect object (even if not specified elsewhere: Bekï kitakihala = Becky gave (something to someone)). But in 2, the verb is not ditransitive, so there is not the indirect object prefix on it. My question is, should I include the 'to/for' preposition in 2, or leave the word 'father' just in the oblique case?

Yay = keep is as the bare oblique
Nay = add the preposition 'to/for'
Kitakisata is just off the table an option?
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3496
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » 25 Apr 2017 20:34

Lao Kou wrote:
holbuzvala wrote:Key: n1 = human noun class; n3 = inanimate noun class; 'ind.obj' = indirect object; 'oblq' = oblique (non accusative)

1.
Bekï dada-k gumna ki-ta-ki-hala
BECKY FATHER-oblq GUMNA n1.sub-n3.obj-n1.ind.obj-GIVE
Becky gave a gumna to her father.

2.
Bekï šfödï (ben) dada-k ki-ta-sata
BECKY COAT (TO/FOR) FATHER-oblq n1.sub-n3.obj-MAKE
Becky made a coat for her father.

In 1, the verb is ditransitive so must have the prefix denoting both the object and indirect object (even if not specified elsewhere: Bekï kitakihala = Becky gave (something to someone)). But in 2, the verb is not ditransitive, so there is not the indirect object prefix on it. My question is, should I include the 'to/for' preposition in 2, or leave the word 'father' just in the oblique case?

Yay = keep is as the bare oblique
Nay = add the preposition 'to/for'
Kitakisata is just off the table an option?
Implicit applicativisation? Why not!

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 216
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by holbuzvala » 25 Apr 2017 22:51

@Lao Kou

I was in fact thinking of using 'kitakisata'. However, I think passives might make this slightly problematic. Passives are formed by just chopping off the subject prefix (which look identical to object and indirect object prefixes - they only differ in placement by the verb)

1. He made it = ki-ta-sata
2. It was made = ta-sata

3. He gave it to her = ki-ta-ki-hala
4. It was given to her = ta-ki-hala
4b. It was given = ta-ki-hala (because it's got to be given to someone)

5. *He made it for her = ki-ta-ki-sata
6. *It was made for her = ta-ki-sata
7. It made her = ta-ki-sata

Now, this wouldn't really be a problem as in sentences with the nouns in them, humans are marked for being agents, patient, or oblique, so the distinction between sentences akin to 6 and 7 would be always clear. However, it may be that context is enough to differentiate 6 and 7 in other cases.

The question then becomes, does this verbal prefix stacking continue for more things?

8. *He made it for her with a knife = KNIFE ki-ta-ki-ta-sata
9. *He made a knife for her with it = KNIFE ki-ta-ki-ta-sata

Or, in a slightly ambiguous one thanks to free word order:

10. *He made a statue for the room (he build a statue to put in the room) = STATUE ROOM ki-ta-ta-sata
11. *He made a room for the statue (he built a room to house the statue) = STATUE ROOM ki-ta-ta-sata

I could add a rule saying that nouns that cannot be excluded from the sentence must come last before the verb. Or have a rule that only human 'beneficiaries' can be added as verb prefixes (which means everything will be unambiguous thanks to the marking on human nouns for agent/patient/oblique). So we have some choices:

Yay = throw in the -ki- prefix ONLY for human beneficiaries (and maybe animates too? they're marked for oblique, but not agent/patient)
Nay = allow added prefixes for all nouns (up to a point)
Meh = Make the word order less free
Ukh = something else
Last edited by holbuzvala on 27 Apr 2017 13:08, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2704
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » 26 Apr 2017 02:45

holbuzvala wrote:Another yay or nay. Compare the following

Key: n1 = human noun class; n3 = inanimate noun class; 'ind.obj' = indirect object; 'oblq' = oblique (non accusative)

1.
Bekï dada-k gumna ki-ta-ki-hala
BECKY FATHER-oblq GUMNA n1.sub-n3.obj-n1.ind.obj-GIVE
Becky gave a gumna to her father.

2.
Bekï šfödï (ben) dada-k ki-ta-sata
BECKY COAT (TO/FOR) FATHER-oblq n1.sub-n3.obj-MAKE
Becky made a coat for her father.

In 1, the verb is ditransitive so must have the prefix denoting both the object and indirect object (even if not specified elsewhere: Bekï kitakihala = Becky gave (something to someone)). But in 2, the verb is not ditransitive, so there is not the indirect object prefix on it. My question is, should I include the 'to/for' preposition in 2, or leave the word 'father' just in the oblique case?

Yay = keep is as the bare oblique
Nay = add the preposition 'to/for'
I think the case that is ued for indirect objects should be called the dative. That makes the question somewhat easier. 'Should the dative also express beneficient adjuncts, or sould there be a preposition?' Both do appear in languages.

I think adding the preposition is more interesting.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6389
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore » 18 May 2017 19:25

Creyeditor wrote:
holbuzvala wrote:I'm trying to think up how to translate 'my name is X.' Obviously, there are several versions available, and these are the ones I've thus far thought up:

1. My name is X
2. They call me X
3. I am X
4. I hold the name X
5. They gave me the name X
6. On/in me is the name X

Which should I use? Or any further suggestions? (P.S. Not a fan of "I call myself X" as I think one shpold relish that one's name is chosen by others and thus delightfully out of our control)
Don't forget the passive version: 'I am called X'. This makes most sense to me, since the 'callers' are very unspecific.
"I answer to X" is also good. It's active instead of passive; and the defeasible implicature is "... and I won't answer to anything else but X".

Post Reply