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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2761
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 30 Nov 2018 20:16

Prestopping of resonants is my favourite phonetic feature ATM.
What languages have them?
In which contexts they have appeared diachronically?

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 298
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 30 Nov 2018 23:23

Considering the vast distances involved in space travel, does the original Creole (Andwomedan) evolving into a sprachbund in which all current languages are related to that language's generative dialect (Batïkïþy [vɑ̟ˈtɪː.kɪː.ɬʊ]*) in some way make sense at all? For example, one dialect may have [ɪː] → [i̠] and [ɛ̠ː] → [e̠] while another may have [ɬ] → [ꞎ] and/or [ɮ] → [ɭ˔].

*Placeholder because I still need to work on the declensions.

In my conlang [s͟x] and [x͟s] are meant to be allophnes of the same phoneme. Is reusing [ɧ] or using a non-IPA symbol, either with explanation—obviously, a better option?
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on 01 Dec 2018 14:46, edited 1 time in total.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4564
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 01 Dec 2018 08:22

Omzinesý wrote:
30 Nov 2018 20:16
Prestopping of resonants is my favourite phonetic feature ATM.
What languages have them?
In which contexts they have appeared diachronically?
Hiw has a prestopped velar lateral from Proto-Oceanic *r.
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
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3395
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 01 Dec 2018 12:18

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 23:23
Considering the vast distances involved in space travel, does the original Creole (Andwomedan) evolving into a sprachbund in which all current languages are related to that language's generative dialect (Batïkïþy [vɑ̞ˈtɪː.kɪː.ɬʊ]*) in some way make sense at all? For example, one dialect may have [ɪː] → [i̠] and [ɛ̠ː] → [e̠] while another may have [ɬ] → [ꞎ] and/or [ɮ] → [ɭ˔].

*Placeholder because I still need to work on the declensions.
I'm not sure I understand the question correctly, but are you asking if speech communities separated by large, difficult to traverse distances are likely to end up speaking differently from each other, with different sound changes taking place in different areas?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 298
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 01 Dec 2018 13:45

sangi39 wrote:
01 Dec 2018 12:18
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 23:23
Considering the vast distances involved in space travel, does the original Creole (Andwomedan) evolving into a sprachbund in which all current languages are related to that language's generative dialect (Batïkïþy [vɑ̟ˈtɪː.kɪː.ɬʊ]*) in some way make sense at all? For example, one dialect may have [ɪː] → [i̠] and [ɛ̠ː] → [e̠] while another may have [ɬ] → [ꞎ] and/or [ɮ] → [ɭ˔].

*Placeholder because I still need to work on the declensions.
I'm not sure I understand the question correctly, but are you asking if speech communities separated by large, difficult to traverse distances are likely to end up speaking differently from each other, with different sound changes taking place in different areas?
With faster-than-light travel the distances wouldn't, necessarily. be difficult-to-traverse, especially, within the parent star system. However, your understanding of my question is, essentially, correct.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

this_is_an_account
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 158
Joined: 14 Aug 2018 06:33

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

Post by this_is_an_account » 02 Dec 2018 23:04

I've got some more questions on pitch accent languages.

Imagine a language with a root /ˈá.rak/ that takes an obligatory class suffix -/in/, which yields /ˈá.ra.kin/. There is also a case suffix -/wə/ that moves the pitch from the root to the class suffix, yieldinɡ /a.ra.ˈkín.wə/. There is another case suffix, -/hi/, which moves the tone onto itself, yieldinɡ /a.ra.kin.ˈhí/.

Is this something any natlangs do? Would it be more naturalistic to have the affixes move stress in just one of these ways instead of both?

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3395
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 03 Dec 2018 00:42

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
01 Dec 2018 13:45
sangi39 wrote:
01 Dec 2018 12:18
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 23:23
Considering the vast distances involved in space travel, does the original Creole (Andwomedan) evolving into a sprachbund in which all current languages are related to that language's generative dialect (Batïkïþy [vɑ̟ˈtɪː.kɪː.ɬʊ]*) in some way make sense at all? For example, one dialect may have [ɪː] → [i̠] and [ɛ̠ː] → [e̠] while another may have [ɬ] → [ꞎ] and/or [ɮ] → [ɭ˔].

*Placeholder because I still need to work on the declensions.
I'm not sure I understand the question correctly, but are you asking if speech communities separated by large, difficult to traverse distances are likely to end up speaking differently from each other, with different sound changes taking place in different areas?
With faster-than-light travel the distances wouldn't, necessarily. be difficult-to-traverse, especially, within the parent star system. However, your understanding of my question is, essentially, correct.
I'd still say it's reasonable to assume that difference would occur, with those differences becoming more prominent the further away two areas are from each other.

It might also depend on access to faster-than-light travel or even how much it gets used if access is actually pretty easy. Scale it down for the sake of argument, say, and look at cars and planes in the USA (or at least how I imagine the situation in my head, this likely doesn't match up to reality). Access to your feet is nigh on universal, but it limits how far you can travel in a reasonable amount of time to your surrounding area, and that's true of everyone within that surrounding area as well. 30 miles a day if you want to get up at a reasonable time, reach your destination, and then sleep before heading home.

Now, access to a car in the US is still pretty universal (at least amongst adults) and they can take you further. 480 miles a day given the same idea as before. That gets you from new York to Pittsburgh, roughly. If you wanted to get to Los Angeles, though, you're going to have to spend about 6 days driving, stopping off overnight along the way. So cars let you go much further, but you're still limited to a certain range. Chances are, fewer people will attempt to make such long distance, despite having access to the ability to make such trips (same with feet above, 30-mile-a-day journeys are going to be rare in comparison to, say, 2 or 4-mile-a-day walks). Your reach is certainly much further, but for day-to-day travel, most people are going to stick roughly within their particular state (and I assume to a point so will most of their resources, news, communication, etc.).

Throw in planes and, well, you can get from New York to Los Angeles in a single day, cutting your travel time to a 6th of what it was when using a car, but I'd imagine that while that does facilitate more people in travelling those distances, the vast majority of people (outside of people whose jobs require them to travel those distances regularly) will not be making those journeys more than maybe once or twice a year. The overall range for interaction with people has become larger, definitely, but day-to-day, most of what you will interact with will still be relatively more local.

The faster you can travel, and the easier the access is to that travel, the more interconnected areas become, and the more connected communication networks might become, so you'd expect to see fewer and fewer vastly different dialects emerging (they might even level out, which is what, as far as I know, we've seen here in the UK and I think through a fair bit of Western Europe, where the more interconnected communities become, the less varied the dialects become). However, travel will still be limited by distance.

If you could get from Earth to Proxima Centauri in, say, 8 hours, just to keep that number going, then travel to Luyten's Star would still take 24 hours of non-stop travel to Gliese 667 C would take 48hours, TRAPPIST-1 60 hours and Kepler-1638 would take over 200 days of non-stop travel. Then again, that's not taking into account any time-dilation effects that super-luminal travel might have (on the other hand, from what I can remember, Alcubierre drives might not experience time-dilation so those 200+days might actually seem like 200+ days for the traveller). That's 2000 light years away. The Milky Way has a diameter of 105,000 light years, or about 24 years of non-stop travel from one end to the other travelling at a speed that could do Earth to Proxima Centauri in 8 hours.

Space is unimaginably huge.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3395
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 03 Dec 2018 00:45

this_is_an_account wrote:
02 Dec 2018 23:04
I've got some more questions on pitch accent languages.

Imagine a language with a root /ˈá.rak/ that takes an obligatory class suffix -/in/, which yields /ˈá.ra.kin/. There is also a case suffix -/wə/ that moves the pitch from the root to the class suffix, yieldinɡ /a.ra.ˈkín.wə/. There is another case suffix, -/hi/, which moves the tone onto itself, yieldinɡ /a.ra.kin.ˈhí/.

Is this something any natlangs do? Would it be more naturalistic to have the affixes move stress in just one of these ways instead of both?
I think various South Slavic languages might do something like this. There might be some historical background to it, but unless you know it, it just looks like "move pitch from here to here when adding suffix X, and from here to there when adding suffix Y", so seems reasonable enough to me [:)]
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 298
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 03 Dec 2018 04:18

sangi39 wrote:
03 Dec 2018 00:42
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
01 Dec 2018 13:45
sangi39 wrote:
01 Dec 2018 12:18
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 23:23
Considering the vast distances involved in space travel, does the original Creole (Andwomedan) evolving into a sprachbund in which all current languages are related to that language's generative dialect (Batïkïþy [vɑ̟ˈtɪː.kɪː.ɬʊ]*) in some way make sense at all? For example, one dialect may have [ɪː] → [i̠] and [ɛ̠ː] → [e̠] while another may have [ɬ] → [ꞎ] and/or [ɮ] → [ɭ˔].

*Placeholder because I still need to work on the declensions.
I'm not sure I understand the question correctly, but are you asking if speech communities separated by large, difficult to traverse distances are likely to end up speaking differently from each other, with different sound changes taking place in different areas?
With faster-than-light travel the distances wouldn't, necessarily. be difficult-to-traverse, especially, within the parent star system. However, your understanding of my question is, essentially, correct.
I'd still say it's reasonable to assume that difference would occur, with those differences becoming more prominent the further away two areas are from each other.

It might also depend on access to faster-than-light travel or even how much it gets used if access is actually pretty easy. Scale it down for the sake of argument, say, and look at cars and planes in the USA (or at least how I imagine the situation in my head, this likely doesn't match up to reality). Access to your feet is nigh on universal, but it limits how far you can travel in a reasonable amount of time to your surrounding area, and that's true of everyone within that surrounding area as well. 30 miles a day if you want to get up at a reasonable time, reach your destination, and then sleep before heading home.

Now, access to a car in the US is still pretty universal (at least amongst adults) and they can take you further. 480 miles a day given the same idea as before. That gets you from new York to Pittsburgh, roughly. If you wanted to get to Los Angeles, though, you're going to have to spend about 6 days driving, stopping off overnight along the way. So cars let you go much further, but you're still limited to a certain range. Chances are, fewer people will attempt to make such long distance, despite having access to the ability to make such trips (same with feet above, 30-mile-a-day journeys are going to be rare in comparison to, say, 2 or 4-mile-a-day walks). Your reach is certainly much further, but for day-to-day travel, most people are going to stick roughly within their particular state (and I assume to a point so will most of their resources, news, communication, etc.).

Throw in planes and, well, you can get from New York to Los Angeles in a single day, cutting your travel time to a 6th of what it was when using a car, but I'd imagine that while that does facilitate more people in travelling those distances, the vast majority of people (outside of people whose jobs require them to travel those distances regularly) will not be making those journeys more than maybe once or twice a year. The overall range for interaction with people has become larger, definitely, but day-to-day, most of what you will interact with will still be relatively more local.

The faster you can travel, and the easier the access is to that travel, the more interconnected areas become, and the more connected communication networks might become, so you'd expect to see fewer and fewer vastly different dialects emerging (they might even level out, which is what, as far as I know, we've seen here in the UK and I think through a fair bit of Western Europe, where the more interconnected communities become, the less varied the dialects become). However, travel will still be limited by distance.

If you could get from Earth to Proxima Centauri in, say, 8 hours, just to keep that number going, then travel to Luyten's Star would still take 24 hours of non-stop travel to Gliese 667 C would take 48hours, TRAPPIST-1 60 hours and Kepler-1638 would take over 200 days of non-stop travel. Then again, that's not taking into account any time-dilation effects that super-luminal travel might have (on the other hand, from what I can remember, Alcubierre drives might not experience time-dilation so those 200+days might actually seem like 200+ days for the traveller). That's 2000 light years away. The Milky Way has a diameter of 105,000 light years, or about 24 years of non-stop travel from one end to the other travelling at a speed that could do Earth to Proxima Centauri in 8 hours.

Space is unimaginably huge.
Okay. Thanks a ton.

Here's another for anyone who wishes to tackle it (to avoid a double post). Gradation (formerly, declension) of my conlang's nouns and adjectives is, currently, based off of their ending and an unrounded vowel (cf. i-grade stems of i- or y-) (bare nominative stem (BNS)), as opposed to the traditional stem-based structure (TV). Considering my conlang is non-gendered—if that matters, how's BNS compare/contrast with TV so I may make a well-informed decision on the possibility of changing to TV?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

this_is_an_account
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 158
Joined: 14 Aug 2018 06:33

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

Post by this_is_an_account » 03 Dec 2018 06:30

Thanks sangi39!

I've got yet another question on pitch accent.
Imagine a language where accented vowels are high and the rest are low. This language then undergoes the following changes:

V́V → V̂
VV́ → V̌
V → V̌ / _V́
V̌ → V́
V̂ → V

Here are some example words that go through these changes:

/ta.ta.ˈá/ → /ta.ˈtá/
/ta.tá/ → /tá.ˈtá/

Basically, now there are two kinds of accented vowels. Those that make the previous vowel high, and those that don't. Is this still a pitch accent language?

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2761
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 03 Dec 2018 11:01

Creyeditor wrote:
01 Dec 2018 08:22
Omzinesý wrote:
30 Nov 2018 20:16
Prestopping of resonants is my favourite phonetic feature ATM.
What languages have them?
In which contexts they have appeared diachronically?
Hiw has a prestopped velar lateral from Proto-Oceanic *r.
Is that an unconditioned change?

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3395
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 03 Dec 2018 14:24

this_is_an_account wrote:
03 Dec 2018 06:30
Thanks sangi39!

I've got yet another question on pitch accent.
Imagine a language where accented vowels are high and the rest are low. This language then undergoes the following changes:

V́V → V̂
VV́ → V̌
V → V̌ / _V́
V̌ → V́
V̂ → V

Here are some example words that go through these changes:

/ta.ta.ˈá/ → /ta.ˈtá/
/ta.tá/ → /tá.ˈtá/

Basically, now there are two kinds of accented vowels. Those that make the previous vowel high, and those that don't. Is this still a pitch accent language?
I think so? The pitch of a word is still dependent on the accented syllable, not to each syllable independently (which would, presumably, make it fully tonal). It's just that here there are two different types of accent, one where the peak is like a spike and another where the peak is more spread out.

Sort of feels a bit Swedish, where Accent 1 (at least in Stockholm, from what I can remember) has a high tone on the stressed syllable which then falls to a low tone for the next syllable, while Accent 2 is sort of... "double falling"? The stressed syllable falls, as it does in Accent 1 (although I think it starts a bit lower), but then the tone rises again for the next syllable, which then falls in tone again. So Accent 1 goes (from stressed syllable to the next) High-Low, while in the same two syllables, words with Accent 2 go High-Low-High-Low.

I would expect there to be maybe some variation in the two high tones in your Accent 2 (/tá.ˈtá/), like maybe the first high tone is slightly lower, or perhaps the two high tones mean that the tone of all the preceding syllables gradually rise, then suddenly fall after the stressed syllable, while in Accent 1 (/ta.ˈtá/), the tone of the preceding syllables remains pretty low, with the tone suddenly rising on the stresses syllable, then falling again. I think that still counts as pitch accent, and I swear I've seen it before somewhere.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4564
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 03 Dec 2018 16:28

Omzinesý wrote:
03 Dec 2018 11:01
Creyeditor wrote:
01 Dec 2018 08:22
Omzinesý wrote:
30 Nov 2018 20:16
Prestopping of resonants is my favourite phonetic feature ATM.
What languages have them?
In which contexts they have appeared diachronically?
Hiw has a prestopped velar lateral from Proto-Oceanic *r.
Is that an unconditioned change?
I am not sure. You can read about it on Francois' website, here. The article is called 'pdf Where *R they all? The history and geography of *R loss in Southern Oceanic.' but I can't link to it directly for some reason, even though it should be publicly available.
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
sinic
sinic
Posts: 252
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » 03 Dec 2018 16:33

How realistic is it that my conlang marks animate and inanimate nouns differently?
In animate nouns, A is ergative and O/S are absolutive.
In inanimate nouns, A/S are absolutive and O is ergative.

User avatar
WeepingElf
sinic
sinic
Posts: 205
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by WeepingElf » 03 Dec 2018 17:07

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
03 Dec 2018 16:33
How realistic is it that my conlang marks animate and inanimate nouns differently?
In animate nouns, A is ergative and O/S are absolutive.
In inanimate nouns, A/S are absolutive and O is ergative.
You have it backwards. The usual pattern is:

Animate - A/S nominative, O accusative
Inanimate - A ergative, S/O absolutive

Wherein the nominative and the absolutive are zero-marked, and the functions of the ergative and accusative may be taken by other cases, such as genitive for ergative and dative for accusative.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11830
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 03 Dec 2018 17:14

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
03 Dec 2018 16:33
How realistic is it that my conlang marks animate and inanimate nouns differently?
In animate nouns, A is ergative and O/S are absolutive.
In inanimate nouns, A/S are absolutive and O is ergative.
I assume you're using A, O, and S as they're used here?

Looking at what you've said about inanimate nouns, I'd recommend at least calling the cases different things there. For example, it strikes me as quite strange to call a case that marks the patients of transitive verbs "ergative".

Anyway, active-stative languages mark the sole arguments of intransitive verbs identically to either the agents of transitive verbs or the patients of transitive verbs. The split is based on different things in different languages. In some languages, it's determined lexically, with the arguments of some intransitive verbs always being marked like agents, and the arguments of others always being marked like patients. In other languages, speakers can decide how to mark the argument of an intransitive verb on a case-by-case basis, depending on what they're trying to convey. For example, in some languages, marking the argument of an intransitive verb like an agent might carry connotations of control over the action, or marking the sole argument like a transitive patient might convey the idea that there was a lack of control over the action.

So, it's definitely not unrealistic to have such a split in how the sole arguments of intransitive verbs are marked, and I wouldn't say it's unrealistic to have that split be determined by the animacy of the argument in question. However, I would personally flip the way animate and inanimate nouns are marked, actually. Since some active-stative languages mark the intransitive argument the same way as the transitive agent (like nominative-accusative languages) when the argument has control or agency over the action, and animate nouns generally have more agency than inanimate ones, I'd have animate nouns take "nominative-accusative"-like marking, and inanimate nouns take "ergative-absolutive"-type marking. Similarly, I think that in split-ergative languages with an animacy-based split, animacy is associated with nominative-accusative alignment, not ergativity.

User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 252
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » 03 Dec 2018 18:38

shimobaatar wrote:
03 Dec 2018 17:14
I assume you're using A, O, and S as they're used here?
Yeah.
WeepingElf wrote:
03 Dec 2018 17:07
You have it backwards. The usual pattern is:

Animate - A/S nominative, O accusative
Inanimate - A ergative, S/O absolutive

Wherein the nominative and the absolutive are zero-marked, and the functions of the ergative and accusative may be taken by other cases, such as genitive for ergative and dative for accusative.
Oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the info guys!

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 298
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 05 Dec 2018 01:47

Perhaps, I should have asked about my conlang's case alignment before asking the other questions in this topic. Currently, the lang uses a nominative-accusative alignment, mainly, because that's the one I'm most familiar with. However, considering the lang's word order is free with a preference towards V/XSO syntax (think a community of Yodas), which case alignment would suit it the best?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11830
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 05 Dec 2018 02:15

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
05 Dec 2018 01:47
Perhaps, I should have asked about my conlang's case alignment before asking the other questions in this topic. Currently, the lang uses a nominative-accusative alignment, mainly, because that's the one I'm most familiar with. However, considering the lang's word order is free with a preference towards V/XSO syntax (think a community of Yodas), which case alignment would suit it the best?
You've referred to "case alignment"; are you only talking about the language's case marking, or its morphosyntactic alignment in general?

I'm also not sure what you mean by "suit it the best". At least in my experience, I've never heard about a strong link between word order and morphosyntactic alignment. Languages with the same basic word orders (at least in terms of subject, object, and verb) can have different alignments. For example, among the VSO languages listed by Wikipedia are members of the Mayan family, which tend to be ergative-absolutive, but also the living Celtic languages, which are nominative-accusative.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1832
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 05 Dec 2018 03:04

Creyeditor wrote:
03 Dec 2018 16:28
Omzinesý wrote:
03 Dec 2018 11:01
Creyeditor wrote:
01 Dec 2018 08:22
Omzinesý wrote:
30 Nov 2018 20:16
Prestopping of resonants is my favourite phonetic feature ATM.
What languages have them?
In which contexts they have appeared diachronically?
Hiw has a prestopped velar lateral from Proto-Oceanic *r.
Is that an unconditioned change?
I am not sure. You can read about it on Francois' website, here. The article is called 'pdf Where *R they all? The history and geography of *R loss in Southern Oceanic.' but I can't link to it directly for some reason, even though it should be publicly available.
I haven't read Francois' article, but it's worth pointing out that PAn *R is just insane everywhere. Reflexes of "*R" span literally an entire alphabet - /d/, /g/, /h/, /j/, /k/, /l/, /n/, /N/, /r/, /R/, /s/, /w/, /x/, 'y' (Blust lists both 'y' and 'j', not sure what values they have) and /z/, as well as a voiceless lateral, a retroflex flap, a palatalised lateral, and interdental fricative, and zero. And many, many languages have several of these at once - Blust concludes it shows "unconditioned phonemic splits in a variety of widely scattered languages from southern Taiwan... to Vanuatu and Micronesia. The alternative is to reconstruct "a potentially unlimited number" of different *R phonemes, since all the unconditioned splits don't line up with one another.

Something weird was going on there...

Post Reply