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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4444
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

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

Post by qwed117 » 14 Dec 2016 01:21

loglorn wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:Note that, in a related development, Blackfoot had nearly unconditional j → s. This process whereby non-sibilant phonemes become sibilants is called assibilation.
Edit: I guess I should explicitly point out that this gives you an alternative path to get s from ɟ, namely ɟ → j → s
I get assibilation of fricatives, but straight from voiced approximants is not something I'd have thought of.
The thing at hand is the precision of the tongue and lips. It's really hard to have an approximant, and not a fricative or cardinal vowel (that is; if there is a difference between the two). As a vocalic realization would have a longer length, and language on part of the speaker is all about being as short as possible, the approximant quickly hardens to a fricative. This process is happening in Spanish, and is attested elsewhere, as mentioned before, Blackfoot and Palauan. This same occurence likely affected the development of the satemization in IE languages, Greco-Romance vetacism. In some cases, the reverse can occur, quite notably the Italo-Romanian isogloss, which has the change s>j, which later monophthongizes.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1796
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » 14 Dec 2016 10:15

LinguoFranco wrote:Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?
I prefer isolating languages. I don't have a preference between agglutinative and fusional. Now that I think of it, most of my conlangs are at a stage of transformation from isolating to agglutinative.

User avatar
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 461
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

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

Post by LinguoFranco » 14 Dec 2016 21:42

gestaltist wrote:
LinguoFranco wrote:Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?
I prefer isolating languages. I don't have a preference between agglutinative and fusional. Now that I think of it, most of my conlangs are at a stage of transformation from isolating to agglutinative.
I honestly which kind I like. My main conlang project is heavily agglutinative, but I don't think I really have a preference.

Most of my earliest conlangs were almost exclusively fusional. I tried to make a couple of isolating languages, but I feel like I lack a lot of room for inflecting words, which I love. I'll give it another go, someday. I also found isolating languages to be a little boring.

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

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

Post by Frislander » 14 Dec 2016 22:46

Well I like my languages to be polysynthetic to some extent, which pretty much always ends up with me going for mostly straight-up agglutination because I'm not that good/experienced with either fused forms or crazy morphopho like Na-Dené.

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

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 14 Dec 2016 22:55

LinguoFranco wrote:Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?
All the languages. Mostly somewhere in-between though because that's where most of the fun stuff happens. There's only so much you can do with Turkish and German.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 461
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

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

Post by LinguoFranco » 14 Dec 2016 23:08

Frislander wrote:Well I like my languages to be polysynthetic to some extent, which pretty much always ends up with me going for mostly straight-up agglutination because I'm not that good/experienced with either fused forms or crazy morphopho like Na-Dené.
Oooooh, polysynthetic. My first conlang was polysynthetic mainly because I based it heavily on Nahuatl. I plan to do one soon.

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 932
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 15 Dec 2016 00:46

LinguoFranco wrote:Do you prefer agglutinative or fusional languages?
I've been interested in agglutination lately, so I'll go with that
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucus.

User avatar
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 461
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

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

Post by LinguoFranco » 16 Dec 2016 15:55

Can anyone explain to me how Austronesian alignment differs from nominative and ergative alignments?

Auvon
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 121
Joined: 27 Aug 2016 08:48

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

Post by Auvon » 17 Dec 2016 04:54

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFuOFZ ... LGA/videos

This channel I stumbled across might be helpful for people learning the IPA.

User avatar
Dezinaa
roman
roman
Posts: 886
Joined: 13 Oct 2013 20:33
Location: tunta, àn paànmúnu’ai

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

Post by Dezinaa » 17 Dec 2016 06:01

Auvon wrote:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFuOFZ ... LGA/videos

This channel I stumbled across might be helpful for people learning the IPA.
That's a nice resource. Pretty high-quality, too, by the looks of it.

User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 708
Joined: 19 Feb 2016 03:47

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

Post by Isfendil » 17 Dec 2016 17:31

LinguoFranco wrote:Can anyone explain to me how Austronesian alignment differs from nominative and ergative alignments?
Austronesian has its own alignment type? I also want an answer to the above question then.

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1869
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

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

Post by loglorn » 17 Dec 2016 17:46

Isfendil wrote:
LinguoFranco wrote:Can anyone explain to me how Austronesian alignment differs from nominative and ergative alignments?
Austronesian has its own alignment type? I also want an answer to the above question then.
Wikipedia actually explains it well in my opinion.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

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

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

Post by Frislander » 17 Dec 2016 18:32

I have an idea for a system of person-marking on my verbs, which extends to the independent pronouns as well, with an interesting syncretism.

The basic system is a minimal-augmented system, with clusivity distinguished in both the minimal and augmented. However, in the augmented the inclusive merges with the plain 2nd person markers. This gives the following paradigm for SAPs (the actual forms are irrelevant):

Code: Select all

   min. aug.
1  n-   lu-
12 ya-  haad-
2  de-  haad-
This idea came from a misreading of a WALS chapter. Does this seem like a reasonable syncretism to people?

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1869
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

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

Post by loglorn » 17 Dec 2016 18:48

Frislander wrote:I have an idea for a system of person-marking on my verbs, which extends to the independent pronouns as well, with an interesting syncretism.

The basic system is a minimal-augmented system, with clusivity distinguished in both the minimal and augmented. However, in the augmented the inclusive merges with the plain 2nd person markers. This gives the following paradigm for SAPs (the actual forms are irrelevant):

Code: Select all

   min. aug.
1  n-   lu-
12 ya-  haad-
2  de-  haad-
This idea came from a misreading of a WALS chapter. Does this seem like a reasonable syncretism to people?
Yeah. Pretty much all syncretism is reasonable. But, if i may ask, what exactly is the mininal vs. augmented distinction?
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

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

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

Post by Frislander » 17 Dec 2016 19:08

loglorn wrote:
Frislander wrote:I have an idea for a system of person-marking on my verbs, which extends to the independent pronouns as well, with an interesting syncretism.

The basic system is a minimal-augmented system, with clusivity distinguished in both the minimal and augmented. However, in the augmented the inclusive merges with the plain 2nd person markers. This gives the following paradigm for SAPs (the actual forms are irrelevant):

Code: Select all

   min. aug.
1  n-   lu-
12 ya-  haad-
2  de-  haad-
This idea came from a misreading of a WALS chapter. Does this seem like a reasonable syncretism to people?
Yeah. Pretty much all syncretism is reasonable. But, if i may ask, what exactly is the mininal vs. augmented distinction?
It's an idea wbereby if you have a dual only in the 1st person inclusive, then you analyse that as a separate person. Then you redefine the singular in this system to be the 'minimal', since it now means 'the smallest possible number value that person can take,' since the inclusive must include at least two people (yourself and the person you are talking to). The augmented is then 'any amount greater than that represented by the minimal', i.e. three or more for the inclusive and two or more for the other persons.

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1869
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

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

Post by loglorn » 17 Dec 2016 19:50

Frislander wrote:
loglorn wrote:
Frislander wrote:I have an idea for a system of person-marking on my verbs, which extends to the independent pronouns as well, with an interesting syncretism.

The basic system is a minimal-augmented system, with clusivity distinguished in both the minimal and augmented. However, in the augmented the inclusive merges with the plain 2nd person markers. This gives the following paradigm for SAPs (the actual forms are irrelevant):

Code: Select all

   min. aug.
1  n-   lu-
12 ya-  haad-
2  de-  haad-
This idea came from a misreading of a WALS chapter. Does this seem like a reasonable syncretism to people?
Yeah. Pretty much all syncretism is reasonable. But, if i may ask, what exactly is the mininal vs. augmented distinction?
It's an idea wbereby if you have a dual only in the 1st person inclusive, then you analyse that as a separate person. Then you redefine the singular in this system to be the 'minimal', since it now means 'the smallest possible number value that person can take,' since the inclusive must include at least two people (yourself and the person you are talking to). The augmented is then 'any amount greater than that represented by the minimal', i.e. three or more for the inclusive and two or more for the other persons.
Oh, it's on the number axis. It is a sensible distinction indeed.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

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

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

Post by Odkidstr » 17 Dec 2016 23:09

Can a word have two stressed syllables? So something like [ˈo.ke.ˈo]?

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4499
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 17 Dec 2016 23:23

Odkidstr wrote:Can a word have two stressed syllables? So something like [ˈo.ke.ˈo]?
Usually one is more prominent, called prominent, and the other one is secodary. If your conlang allows two high pitched long vowels in a word, you might want to call it a tonal language, where high tones and length sometimes coincide.
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
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3496
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

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

Post by Frislander » 18 Dec 2016 01:18

loglorn wrote:
Frislander wrote:
loglorn wrote:
Frislander wrote:I have an idea for a system of person-marking on my verbs, which extends to the independent pronouns as well, with an interesting syncretism.

The basic system is a minimal-augmented system, with clusivity distinguished in both the minimal and augmented. However, in the augmented the inclusive merges with the plain 2nd person markers. This gives the following paradigm for SAPs (the actual forms are irrelevant):

Code: Select all

   min. aug.
1  n-   lu-
12 ya-  haad-
2  de-  haad-
This idea came from a misreading of a WALS chapter. Does this seem like a reasonable syncretism to people?
Yeah. Pretty much all syncretism is reasonable. But, if i may ask, what exactly is the mininal vs. augmented distinction?
It's an idea wbereby if you have a dual only in the 1st person inclusive, then you analyse that as a separate person. Then you redefine the singular in this system to be the 'minimal', since it now means 'the smallest possible number value that person can take,' since the inclusive must include at least two people (yourself and the person you are talking to). The augmented is then 'any amount greater than that represented by the minimal', i.e. three or more for the inclusive and two or more for the other persons.
Oh, it's on the number axis. It is a sensible distinction indeed.
I've just found multiple natlang examples of what I described, so I'm now OK with it in my head. Thank you for your input.

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

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

Post by Odkidstr » 18 Dec 2016 02:00

Creyeditor wrote:
Odkidstr wrote:Can a word have two stressed syllables? So something like [ˈo.ke.ˈo]?
Usually one is more prominent, called prominent, and the other one is secodary. If your conlang allows two high pitched long vowels in a word, you might want to call it a tonal language, where high tones and length sometimes coincide.
Well the language has long vowels appear in stressed syllables, and I was thinking about having some sounds (h, j, w) fall off in the codas to create additional long vowels. The plan is that the vowels will eventually take on tone, with long vowels becoming high and short vowels getting low tone (iirc, it's been a bit since I looked at my notes).

Post Reply