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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 619
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 23:01

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

Post by Sumelic » 13 Dec 2015 08:43

I think the first seems more natural in word-intial position specifically (I think it's attested in Korean as an in-progress sound change), and the second seems more natural in intervocalic position (I think it's attested in Irish as a historical sound change).

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 13 Dec 2015 20:54

Ahzoh wrote:I don't know how I'd express "vibrant colours of many feathers" in my conlang, having a construct state, which therefore means the genitive construction is one unit that cannot be interrupted between the head and modifiers. Like saying "ice-cream truck".

I could only say "vibrant feather-colours" or "many feather-colours" or even "many vibrant feather-colours", the latter of which does not mean "vibrant colours of many feathers", which means the vibrance is due to the quality of being many, as opposed to each feather being vibrant in colour.
Well, you could have more than one genitive construction. Hebrew has like 3 as far as Semitic languages go, English has 2 (the "Saxon" and "Norman" genitives), German has 3 (genitive case, dative + possessive pronoun, „von“). My conlang Hoskh has 3, a head-marking one for inalienable nouns (which consists of juxtaposing both nouns in the same case then putting a suffix on the head), double-marking for alienable nouns when they come in the default order, and triple-marking for alienable nouns when they are not, and also genitives can be put into compound words so you can say things like feather-colors (although I'm not really sure compounding counts as another form of a genitive). Having multiple genitive constructions is probably the norm rather than the exception.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 13 Dec 2015 21:01

HoskhMatriarch wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:I don't know how I'd express "vibrant colours of many feathers" in my conlang, having a construct state, which therefore means the genitive construction is one unit that cannot be interrupted between the head and modifiers. Like saying "ice-cream truck".

I could only say "vibrant feather-colours" or "many feather-colours" or even "many vibrant feather-colours", the latter of which does not mean "vibrant colours of many feathers", which means the vibrance is due to the quality of being many, as opposed to each feather being vibrant in colour.
Well, you could have more than one genitive construction. Hebrew has like 3 as far as Semitic languages go, English has 2 (the "Saxon" and "Norman" genitives), German has 3 (genitive case, dative + possessive pronoun, „von“). My conlang Hoskh has 3, a head-marking one for inalienable nouns (which consists of juxtaposing both nouns in the same case then putting a suffix on the head), double-marking for alienable nouns when they come in the default order, and triple-marking for alienable nouns when they are not, and also genitives can be put into compound words so you can say things like feather-colors (although I'm not really sure compounding counts as another form of a genitive). Having multiple genitive constructions is probably the norm rather than the exception.
But Vrkhazhian only has one genitive construction (construct state plus genitive), and a lot of old real languages do too.
If I had another, it wouldn't be through some particle like "of" nor sole use of a genitive case.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 13 Dec 2015 21:06

Ahzoh wrote:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:I don't know how I'd express "vibrant colours of many feathers" in my conlang, having a construct state, which therefore means the genitive construction is one unit that cannot be interrupted between the head and modifiers. Like saying "ice-cream truck".

I could only say "vibrant feather-colours" or "many feather-colours" or even "many vibrant feather-colours", the latter of which does not mean "vibrant colours of many feathers", which means the vibrance is due to the quality of being many, as opposed to each feather being vibrant in colour.
Well, you could have more than one genitive construction. Hebrew has like 3 as far as Semitic languages go, English has 2 (the "Saxon" and "Norman" genitives), German has 3 (genitive case, dative + possessive pronoun, „von“). My conlang Hoskh has 3, a head-marking one for inalienable nouns (which consists of juxtaposing both nouns in the same case then putting a suffix on the head), double-marking for alienable nouns when they come in the default order, and triple-marking for alienable nouns when they are not, and also genitives can be put into compound words so you can say things like feather-colors (although I'm not really sure compounding counts as another form of a genitive). Having multiple genitive constructions is probably the norm rather than the exception.
But Vrkhazhian only has pne genitive construction, and a lot of old real languages do too.
Well, then if you can't say what you want with a genitive construction, use a paraphrase, like "the vibrant colors found on the many feathers". Anyways, don't just complain about your genitive construction. If you don't like it, change it, and if you do like it, don't complain about it.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 13 Dec 2015 21:32

HoskhMatriarch wrote:Anyways, don't just complain about your genitive construction. If you don't like it, change it, and if you do like it, don't complain about it.
These are such uselessly obvious things to say.

Clearly, I *like* to have one genitive construction--and one that turns such construction into a unitary whole--but needs to come up with a work around for its restrictions, like not being able to assign modifiers to its parts. And that is what I'm fucking asking for. I'm not fucking complaining about anything!
And lo, you have given me one option, a paraphrasis of "The vibrant colours [originating] from the many feathers", but do not give me this silly simplistic dichotomy of "like it, keep it and don't complain" and "don't like it, change it"!
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 13 Dec 2015 21:37

Ahzoh wrote:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:Anyways, don't just complain about your genitive construction. If you don't like it, change it, and if you do like it, don't complain about it.
These are uselessly obvious things to say and help nothing of the problem. Things do not consist of "keep or get rid of" factored on one's preference.

Clearly, I *like* to have one genitive construction--and one that turns such construction into a unitary whole--but needs to come up with a work around for its restrictions, like not being able to assign modifiers to its parts. And that is what I'm fucking asking for. I'm not fucking complaining about anything!
I already said, use a paraphrase if things would otherwise be ambiguous, like "the vibrant colors found on many feathers" or "the many colors found on vibrant feathers" or "the many vibrant colors found on feathers" or "the colors found on many vibrant feathers". Also, this is conlanging, it's an art form of sorts, I think you do get to choose to keep or get rid of something based on your preference...
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 13 Dec 2015 21:40

Of course I do, but I should want to to like something and find work arounds, not "don't complain about it".
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
Avo
roman
roman
Posts: 1001
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 03:04
Location: Berlin, Germany

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

Post by Avo » 13 Dec 2015 22:02

Ask a question and get bitchy when you don't get the answer you wanted. Way to go!

User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6988
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

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

Post by Micamo » 13 Dec 2015 22:07

Ahzoh wrote:which therefore means the genitive construction is one unit that cannot be interrupted between the head and modifiers
Uhh, who says? This is not implied by the existence of a construct state at all.
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 13 Dec 2015 22:15

Avo wrote:Ask a question and get bitchy when you don't get the answer you wanted. Way to go!
No, that's not the case at all.
Anyways, don't just complain about your genitive construction. If you don't like it, change it, and if you do like it, don't complain about it.
This is NOT what I'm fucking doing, and suggesting such is what angers me greatly.
My conlang should only have one means of genitive construction and it has restriction that I need to think of work-arounds for. Paraphrasis was suggested and satisfactory. But this above statement pisses me off.
Micamo wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:which therefore means the genitive construction is one unit that cannot be interrupted between the head and modifiers
Uhh, who says? This is not implied by the existence of a construct state at all.
From what I've read of the construct state, the head (the thing in construct state) and the modifier (the thing in genitive case) are to be treated as one whole, and thus any additional modifiers modify the whole, and not its parts. You should view it like saying "basketsball" and thus you cannot say gloriousbasketshiningball, but only glorious, shining, basketball, and not like shining ball of the glorious basket.
It is also probably the one thing that distinguishes it from being a "possessive case".
Last edited by Ahzoh on 13 Dec 2015 22:26, edited 2 times in total.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

Odkidstr
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 101
Joined: 27 May 2015 20:26

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

Post by Odkidstr » 13 Dec 2015 22:23

Ahzoh wrote:
Avo wrote:Ask a question and get bitchy when you don't get the answer you wanted. Way to go!
No, that's not the case at all.
Anyways, don't just complain about your genitive construction. If you don't like it, change it, and if you do like it, don't complain about it.
This is NOT what I'm fucking doing, and suggesting such is what angers me greatly.
My conlang should only have one means of genitive construction and it has restriction that I need to think of work-arounds for. One was suggested and satisfactory. But this above statement pisses me off.
Calm down. Take a breath. Seriously, I feel like these arguments are going on daily on this forum with how many I've seen recently. If you're that frustrated with someone, just stop responding to them, block them, I don't know. But it gets annoying to see people having pissing contests with each other every other day.

Just take a moment to calm down, consider this from the other person's perspective, and realize that people don't always communicate so well through text as compared to face to face. Also realize that at a certain point, perhaps it's a better idea to just drop it then continue on with a pointless argument.

Also, this isn't directly pointed at the users I quoted, that was just the most recent example of all this. Seriously, everyone could use a chill pill.

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1871
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

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

Post by loglorn » 13 Dec 2015 22:36

Ahzoh wrote:I don't know how I'd express "vibrant colours of many feathers" in my conlang, having a construct state, which therefore means the genitive construction is one unit that cannot be interrupted between the head and modifiers. Like saying "ice-cream truck".

I could only say "vibrant feather-colours" or "many feather-colours" or even "many vibrant feather-colours", the latter of which does not mean "vibrant colours of many feathers", which means the vibrance is due to the quality of being many, as opposed to each feather being vibrant in colour.
So express it without a genitive construction, something like 'many feathers, in which there are/that have vibrant colors'.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3722
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
Location: Carnassus

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

Post by Thrice Xandvii » 13 Dec 2015 23:30

Ahzoh wrote:I don't know how I'd express "vibrant colours of many feathers" in my conlang, having a construct state, which therefore means the genitive construction is one unit that cannot be interrupted between the head and modifiers. Like saying "ice-cream truck".

I could only say "vibrant feather-colours" or "many feather-colours" or even "many vibrant feather-colours", the latter of which does not mean "vibrant colours of many feathers", which means the vibrance is due to the quality of being many, as opposed to each feather being vibrant in colour.
First of all, I'm not sure precisely what "vibrant colors of many feathers" means. It's a fragment without context that could likely refer to a few different things.

Simply restating the original in a different way might get you something you can translate more readily into Vrkhz while still maintaining the meaning. Seems like you are hung up on translating those exact words, which, frankly, isn't necessary. Lots of languages don't correspond exactly and require a bit of wiggle room for interpretation in one area or another. Perhaps yours requires this type of thing for genitive constructions.

Also, as Micamo stated, why can't you have intervening words? I was under, the perhaps mistaken, impression that one of the uses of a construct state was the ability to free up word order since both the possessor and possessed are marked. I don't see why you couldn't just stick the other adjectives in there? Seems like this "solitary unit" thing is unusually restrictive.
Image

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 14 Dec 2015 00:16

First of all, I'm not sure precisely what "vibrant colors of many feathers" means. It's a fragment without context that could likely refer to a few different things.
I told you: it means that the quality of vibrance comes from the fact that there are many feathers, all of which have different colours from each other. It is part of a sentence I made: "wings with the vibrant colours of many feathers" and this is to be contrasted with something like "wings with many, vibrant colours of feathers", which would imply that there are many feathers, but each one consists of vibrant colours.
Paraphrasis could solve this one, but I don't if it would work for others: like "the beautiful, graceful queen of a wretched, polluted city" and "the kind, old man's sickly, mean dog".
I could use the ablative case, but it feels strange to use for some things, for it is often used for motions away or for things with a source, like people from cities, or water from rivers. but you cannot say that a dog is birthed from an old man.
Seems like you are hung up on translating those exact words, which, frankly, isn't necessary.
It is entirely necessary, for above reasons.
Also, as Micamo stated, why can't you have intervening words?
Wikipedia wrote:The modified noun is placed in the construct state, which lacks any definite article (despite being semantically definite), and is often phonetically shortened (as in Biblical Hebrew). The modifying noun is placed directly afterwards, and no other word can intervene between the two. For example, an adjective that qualifies either the modified or modifying noun must appear after both.
Yes, it's Wikipedia, but I can't find nothing that disproves this statement.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1871
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

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

Post by loglorn » 14 Dec 2015 01:00

Didi you not see the post where I suggest expressing the idea with other constructions that are not your genitive phrase?
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 14 Dec 2015 01:02

loglorn wrote:Didi you not see the post where I suggest expressing the idea with other constructions that are not your genitive phrase?
Did you not see this which acknowledges your solution?:
Paraphrasis could solve this one, but I don't if it would work for others: like "the beautiful, graceful queen of a wretched, polluted city" and "the kind, old man's sickly, mean dog".
I could use the ablative case, but it feels strange to use for some things, for it is often used for motions away or for things with a source, like people from cities, or water from rivers. but you cannot say that a dog is birthed from an old man.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6988
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

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

Post by Micamo » 14 Dec 2015 01:40

Ahzoh wrote:
Also, as Micamo stated, why can't you have intervening words?
Wikipedia wrote:The modified noun is placed in the construct state, which lacks any definite article (despite being semantically definite), and is often phonetically shortened (as in Biblical Hebrew). The modifying noun is placed directly afterwards, and no other word can intervene between the two. For example, an adjective that qualifies either the modified or modifying noun must appear after both.
Yes, it's Wikipedia, but I can't find nothing that disproves this statement.
Hebrew might work that way, sure (I don't think it has anything to do with the construct state itself though) but other langs with "construct states" don't. There's no reason to say your lang has to work the same way, and even if you decide you want to do that, there's again no reason you couldn't:

A. Use a paraphrase (plenty of suggestions by others in this thread)
B. Just deal with the ambiguity (natlangs are ambiguous all the time)
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 14 Dec 2015 01:43

Micamo wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:
Also, as Micamo stated, why can't you have intervening words?
Wikipedia wrote:The modified noun is placed in the construct state, which lacks any definite article (despite being semantically definite), and is often phonetically shortened (as in Biblical Hebrew). The modifying noun is placed directly afterwards, and no other word can intervene between the two. For example, an adjective that qualifies either the modified or modifying noun must appear after both.
Yes, it's Wikipedia, but I can't find nothing that disproves this statement.
Hebrew might work that way, sure (I don't think it has anything to do with the construct state itself though) but other langs with "construct states" don't.
Actually, that statement qualifies for all the languages with construct states, like Arabic and including the only non-Semitic language, Dholuo.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1871
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

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

Post by loglorn » 14 Dec 2015 02:20

Ahzoh wrote:
loglorn wrote:Didi you not see the post where I suggest expressing the idea with other constructions that are not your genitive phrase?
Did you not see this which acknowledges your solution?:
Paraphrasis could solve this one, but I don't if it would work for others: like "the beautiful, graceful queen of a wretched, polluted city" and "the kind, old man's sickly, mean dog".
I could use the ablative case, but it feels strange to use for some things, for it is often used for motions away or for things with a source, like people from cities, or water from rivers. but you cannot say that a dog is birthed from an old man.
"The beautiful, graceful queen that rules a wretched, polluted city"
"The sickly, mean dog that belongs to a kind, old man"

Also, can you do simple, unmarked, Noun Phrase apposition?
If yes, you could do something in the lines of "vibrant colors, many feathers", and have context figure out the semantics of possession.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6988
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

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

Post by Micamo » 14 Dec 2015 03:03

Ahzoh wrote:Actually, that statement qualifies for all the languages with construct states, like Arabic and including the only non-Semitic language, Dholuo.
*sigh*

I already explained this to you once before. The term "construct state" applies to a bunch of analogous structures in various languages (including plenty outside the semetic family) with different behaviors.
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

Post Reply