Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1798
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn » 01 Oct 2018 23:26

I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it but I've been working on a sort of conlanging exercise. It's a Germanic language similar to Dutch and Low German which has technically removed cases from its grammar, but one that uses fossilized case usages so frequently that it's still practically a necessity to learn cases in order to properly speak the language. I was wondering if anyone would be curious in seeing a thread about this. [:)]

shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 11149
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » 01 Oct 2018 23:59

All4Ɇn wrote:
01 Oct 2018 23:26
I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it but I've been working on a sort of conlanging exercise. It's a Germanic language similar to Dutch and Low German which has technically removed cases from its grammar, but one that uses fossilized case usages so frequently that it's still practically a necessity to learn cases in order to properly speak the language. I was wondering if anyone would be curious in seeing a thread about this. [:)]
Yes, absolutely!

Nachtuil
sinic
sinic
Posts: 424
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 23:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Nachtuil » 04 Oct 2018 18:32

All4Ɇn wrote:
01 Oct 2018 23:26
I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it but I've been working on a sort of conlanging exercise. It's a Germanic language similar to Dutch and Low German which has technically removed cases from its grammar, but one that uses fossilized case usages so frequently that it's still practically a necessity to learn cases in order to properly speak the language. I was wondering if anyone would be curious in seeing a thread about this. [:)]
Seems interesting potentially. I quite like low Germanic languages myself generally. I find it hard to conceptualise a situation where case remains fully understood but only exists in fossilised set phrases but knowledge of it is necessary to speak it properly though at the same time not necessary. Could it be that you have a prestige dialect that retains the use of case and it is more optional or diminished in common usage? I like the idea of a transitional state from case to non-case and again, I am enthusiastic about low Germanic languages generally. I would be interested in what you do with it for sure.

tseren
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Dec 2016 20:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by tseren » 08 Oct 2018 18:37

Since pː → pʰ is attested, how likely is the opposite pʰ → pː in an intervocalic environment? Both [pʰ] and [pː] could be viewed as fortis realizations of [p]. Yea or Nay on making them interchangeable intervocalically such that:

p pʰ → f p \ V_V

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 146
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by WeepingElf » 08 Oct 2018 19:33

tseren wrote:
08 Oct 2018 18:37
Since pː → pʰ is attested, how likely is the opposite pʰ → pː in an intervocalic environment? Both [pʰ] and [pː] could be viewed as fortis realizations of [p]. Yea or Nay on making them interchangeable intervocalically such that:

p pʰ → f p \ V_V
I'd say nay: [pʰ] is more likely to become [f] than [p]. The change you are asking about seems like leap-frogging to me.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7700
Joined: 13 May 2012 01:57

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Lambuzhao » 09 Oct 2018 02:35

I bet someone already mentioned this, but anyway:

What happens when an aspect is argued without sufficient sway?
If it's neither 'yay' nor 'nay', does that make it 'gray' ?
:wat:

shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 11149
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » 09 Oct 2018 12:38

Lambuzhao wrote:
09 Oct 2018 02:35
What happens when an aspect is argued without sufficient sway?
If it's neither 'yay' nor 'nay', does that make it 'gray' ?
Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to ask. Could you perhaps clarify?

User avatar
gach
MVP
MVP
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 00:26
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gach » 09 Oct 2018 13:12

tseren wrote:
08 Oct 2018 18:37
Since pː → pʰ is attested, how likely is the opposite pʰ → pː in an intervocalic environment? Both [pʰ] and [pː] could be viewed as fortis realizations of [p]. Yea or Nay on making them interchangeable intervocalically such that:

p pʰ → f p \ V_V
Maybe, though I'd like to see real world examples of Cʰ > C: to be truly happy with the justification. My preferred development path would still be along the lines of

p > b > β > f
pʰ > p

User avatar
spanick
roman
roman
Posts: 888
Joined: 11 May 2017 00:47
Location: California

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by spanick » 10 Oct 2018 19:02

Option 4 but maybe have one of the classes be quite rare compared to the others.

felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 422
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » 16 Oct 2018 22:44

I'm working on Denkurian's nominal declension system, and I think I am mostly satisfied with where I've ended up, except I'm not too sure about what I have for the genitive plural. I am using the example noun razh man, since it is a consonant stem:

Code: Select all

	sg.	pl.
nom.	razh	razhen
acc.	razhes	razhis
gen.	razhek	razhenek
dat.	razhev	razhiv
inst.	razhed	razhidi
In this set, the genitive plural ending is -(e)nek, which is basically the nominative accusative plural plus the genitive ending, instead of the normal oblique plural marker -i.

I was considering the following genitive plural markers:
  1. -(e)nek, as above
  2. -(e)kel, using an old collective affix -el
  3. -(e)ken, reversing the order of the case and plural suffix
  4. -inek, using both the oblique and nominative plural, plus the genitive ending
  5. Some other combination/order of the genitive affix -(e)k, the oblique plural -i, the nominative plural -(e)n, and the old collective affix -el
Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks in advance!
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!

Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 811
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine » 16 Oct 2018 23:10

Honestly, having -ik as the plural in analogy with the dative and accusative might suffice, unless you are going for something totally regular and agglutinative.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Mannish — A North Germanic language spoken on the Calf of Man
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area

felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 422
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » 16 Oct 2018 23:44

Ælfwine wrote:
16 Oct 2018 23:10
Honestly, having -ik as the plural in analogy with the dative and accusative might suffice, unless you are going for something totally regular and agglutinative.
I thought about that as well; I guess I saw the -ik option as appearing even more regular and agglutinative.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!

User avatar
spanick
roman
roman
Posts: 888
Joined: 11 May 2017 00:47
Location: California

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by spanick » 17 Oct 2018 01:27

I like 1 and 4.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2480
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » 17 Oct 2018 14:17

felipesnark wrote:
16 Oct 2018 22:44
I'm working on Denkurian's nominal declension system, and I think I am mostly satisfied with where I've ended up, except I'm not too sure about what I have for the genitive plural. I am using the example noun razh man, since it is a consonant stem:

Code: Select all

	sg.	pl.
nom.	razh	razhen
acc.	razhes	razhis
gen.	razhek	razhenek
dat.	razhev	razhiv
inst.	razhed	razhidi
In this set, the genitive plural ending is -(e)nek, which is basically the nominative accusative plural plus the genitive ending, instead of the normal oblique plural marker -i.

I was considering the following genitive plural markers:
  1. -(e)nek, as above
  2. -(e)kel, using an old collective affix -el
  3. -(e)ken, reversing the order of the case and plural suffix
  4. -inek, using both the oblique and nominative plural, plus the genitive ending
  5. Some other combination/order of the genitive affix -(e)k, the oblique plural -i, the nominative plural -(e)n, and the old collective affix -el
Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks in advance!
It seems to be plural genitives that are most varied in languages. Finnish has enkeli-en, enkele-iden, enkele-itten, enkel-ten (and enkele-in) all meaning ' angels' ' Russian plural genitives are also famously difficult.

shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 11149
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » 17 Oct 2018 16:10

Going by sound alone, I think I like options 1 and 4 the most.

User avatar
jimydog000
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 103
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 04:14
Location: Australia

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by jimydog000 » 17 Oct 2018 16:40

gach wrote:
09 Oct 2018 13:12
tseren wrote:
08 Oct 2018 18:37
Since pː → pʰ is attested, how likely is the opposite pʰ → pː in an intervocalic environment? Both [pʰ] and [pː] could be viewed as fortis realizations of [p]. Yea or Nay on making them interchangeable intervocalically such that:

p pʰ → f p \ V_V
Maybe, though I'd like to see real world examples of Cʰ > C: to be truly happy with the justification. My preferred development path would still be along the lines of

p > b > β > f
pʰ > p
β > f is pretty rare and strange though.

If your okay with devoicing between consonants (like gach's β > f) you could try:
pʰ > b > bː > pː
p > f

or:
p > f
pʰ > p > pː
But like gach I'd expect pʰ to become f over p.

There is this one rule I found here: http://pbase.phon.chass.ncsu.edu/pattern/4231 . And that's it.

So... nay? Subjectively better option:
pʰ > f \ V_V
p > pː \ V_V[+stress]
“Comparison is the death of joy.” -Mark Twain

User avatar
gach
MVP
MVP
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 00:26
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gach » 19 Oct 2018 12:38

jimydog000 wrote:
17 Oct 2018 16:40
β > f is pretty rare and strange though.
You can impose general devoicing of fricatives, though, in which case the change works nicely. Voicing distinction is anyway less common on fricatives than on stops (https://wals.info/feature/4A#2/19.3/152.9), so loosing voicing on fricatives is not out of question.

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6201
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ahzoh » 03 Jan 2019 02:21

Yay or nay,

Vrkhazhian should have ejective fricatives (that, like all fricatives, tend to affricate word-initially)?

The inventory would look like this:
https://www.frathwiki.com/Vrkhazhian#Consonants
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 11149
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » 03 Jan 2019 03:43

I'd vote no.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2480
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » 09 Jan 2019 19:25

Ahzoh wrote:
03 Jan 2019 02:21
Yay or nay,

Vrkhazhian should have ejective fricatives (that, like all fricatives, tend to affricate word-initially)?

The inventory would look like this:
https://www.frathwiki.com/Vrkhazhian#Consonants
Maybe it could have ejective fricatives as roducts of some morpho-phonological processes, but not on the lexical level.

Post Reply