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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 11450
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 03 Feb 2019 21:27

LinguoFranco wrote:
03 Feb 2019 20:56
How essential is it to have a conpeople to speak a conlang? I’m working on a personal language that still strives to be naturalistic, and I’m starting to think I should have people who speak it.
There's very little that's "essential" for conlanging. If you want to create a culture as well, that's great, but don't feel like you have to just because some other people do it.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3226
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 04 Feb 2019 01:06

LinguoFranco wrote:
03 Feb 2019 20:56
How essential is it to have a conpeople to speak a conlang? I’m working on a personal language that still strives to be naturalistic, and I’m starting to think I should have people who speak it.
Definitely with Creyeditor on this one. Conlangs go well beyond "spoken by a fictional group of people". I mean, look at Esperanto, the entire point of which is to be spoken by real-world people, and personal languages certainly do exist as well, but I think they tend to go largely undocumented, I assume because they more or less only turn up in personal diaries.

I suppose it's not impossible for a conlang to be both a personal language, and the language of a fictional people.
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
Reyzadren
sinic
sinic
Posts: 397
Joined: 14 May 2017 09:39
Contact:

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

Post by Reyzadren » 04 Feb 2019 01:24

^Yup, my conlang is both a personal language, and a language in a fictional world [:D], through contrived coincidence.

New question: How does one view their conlang's difficulty, OOC or IC? (this quick question probably isn't worthy of its own thread)

OOCly, I think it's one of the easiest, compared to most conlangs. I don't like learning natlangs because they are difficult for me, but using my own is just a breeze. Some members here commented that it resembles a clone of English, which could be a factor, but I suppose its regularity is also helpful in general, amongst other features. There is simply nothing linguistically complicated about it imo. 1/5.

In-conworld, it is one of the most commonly spoken languages, partly due to its ease and accessibility. Though I suspect that there are much more conworld-specific words there, even non-native speakers would most likely consider it as 1/5.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2977
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 03:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 13 Feb 2019 23:10

Is a tense-based split-erg protolang more likely to evolve split-s or fluid-s?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

Cẅènyon
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: 15 Dec 2018 16:01

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

Post by Cẅènyon » 14 Feb 2019 16:13

Never mind what I wrote before, I apologize.
Last edited by Cẅènyon on 14 Feb 2019 22:07, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1806
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » 14 Feb 2019 20:08

Shemtov wrote:
13 Feb 2019 23:10
Is a tense-based split-erg protolang more likely to evolve split-s or fluid-s?
I think the evolution of split-s vs fluid-s has to do mostly with the lexical items available in the language. If the proto-language tends to have separate volitional vs non-volitional verbs, it's somewhat less likely to evolve fluid-s because that distinction is already covered lexically. Otherwise, anything goes.

User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1806
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » 14 Feb 2019 20:11

Cẅènyon wrote:
14 Feb 2019 16:13
Hello. Are there any latinised names for grammatical cases matching with the expressions "according to" and "far from"? Which ones should have grammatical numbers matching with "many", "more" and "less" (these two last like in "more/less chairs, buttons, etc.)?
I'd go with "considerative" and "distal", respectively. I am not quite sure what you're asking in your second question.

Cẅènyon
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: 15 Dec 2018 16:01

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

Post by Cẅènyon » 16 Feb 2019 19:26

Sorry for my previous question, I don't know what I was thinking on.
Next question: which letter would you use to romanize an stressed [æ] sound? First, an unestressed [æ] is spelled as <ä> in my conlang, and I use macrons to mark stress. Though I know <ǟ> is used in some languages' romanizations, I don't quite like both diacritics on the same side of the grapheme, so I have created a new character with typeit.org, <ā̤> (in case some computers don't display it, it's an A with a macron above and diaeresis below). Which of both would you use for your romanization systems (in case you used <ä> in your alphabet)?

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3226
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 16 Feb 2019 19:46

Cẅènyon wrote:
16 Feb 2019 19:26
Sorry for my previous question, I don't know what I was thinking on.
Next question: which letter would you use to romanize an stressed [æ] sound? First, an unestressed [æ] is spelled as <ä> in my conlang, and I use macrons to mark stress. Though I know <ǟ> is used in some languages' romanizations, I don't quite like both diacritics on the same side of the grapheme, so I have created a new character with typeit.org, <ā̤> (in case some computers don't display it, it's an A with a macron above and diaeresis below). Which of both would you use for your romanization systems (in case you used <ä> in your alphabet)?
I'm assuming plain <ā> is already being used, so have you considered <> or <â>?
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.

Cẅènyon
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: 15 Dec 2018 16:01

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

Post by Cẅènyon » 16 Feb 2019 20:46

sangi39 wrote:
16 Feb 2019 19:46
I'm assuming plain <ā> is already being used, so have you considered <> or <â>?
I think I'll take the one with the circumflex. Thanks for that.
And another question: can collective, singulative, singular and plural numbers exist and a same language?
Would it be logical or naturalistic to use the first two to mark noun undefiniteness and last two for definite nouns?

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3226
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 16 Feb 2019 20:53

Cẅènyon wrote:
16 Feb 2019 20:46
sangi39 wrote:
16 Feb 2019 19:46
I'm assuming plain <ā> is already being used, so have you considered <> or <â>?
I think I'll take the one with the circumflex. Thanks for that.
And another question: can collective, singulative, singular and plural numbers exist and a same language?
Would it be logical or naturalistic to use the first two to mark noun undefiniteness and last two for definite nouns?
IIRC, Welsh has both singular vs. plural (tad ~ tadau, father ~ fathers), and collective vs. singulative (moch ~ mochyn, pigs ~ pig), so that at least is plausible. I can't think of a word off of the top of my head, though, which falls into both groups.

As for using such a system to mark definiteness, I don't know. I can't see how it would happen, but maybe somebody else can.
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
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2532
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 16 Feb 2019 21:00

sangi39 wrote:
16 Feb 2019 20:53
Cẅènyon wrote:
16 Feb 2019 20:46
sangi39 wrote:
16 Feb 2019 19:46
I'm assuming plain <ā> is already being used, so have you considered <> or <â>?
I think I'll take the one with the circumflex. Thanks for that.
And another question: can collective, singulative, singular and plural numbers exist and a same language?
Would it be logical or naturalistic to use the first two to mark noun undefiniteness and last two for definite nouns?
IIRC, Welsh has both singular vs. plural (tad ~ tadau, father ~ fathers), and collective vs. singulative (moch ~ mochyn, pigs ~ pig), so that at least is plausible. I can't think of a word off of the top of my head, though, which falls into both groups.

As for using such a system to mark definiteness, I don't know. I can't see how it would happen, but maybe somebody else can.
Depends what you mean with those therms. I'm supposing you just speak about the morphological marking that singular and collective are unmarked while singulative and plural are marked.

Do you mean that the same unmarked form means both definite singular and indefinite plural while definite plural and indefinite singular have marked forms?
If there are other means for marking definiteness and/or number beside that, I don't think it's as bad an idea as it first appears.

Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2556
Joined: 22 May 2012 02:05

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

Post by Keenir » 16 Feb 2019 21:57

Cẅènyon wrote:
16 Feb 2019 19:26
Sorry for my previous question, I don't know what I was thinking on.
Next question: which letter would you use to romanize an stressed [æ] sound? First, an unestressed [æ] is spelled as <ä> in my conlang, and I use macrons to mark stress. Though I know <ǟ> is used in some languages' romanizations, I don't quite like both diacritics on the same side of the grapheme, so I have created a new character with typeit.org, <ā̤> (in case some computers don't display it, it's an A with a macron above and diaeresis below). Which of both would you use for your romanization systems (in case you used <ä> in your alphabet)?
more than a little late, sorry...what about the underscore?
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 213
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » 19 Feb 2019 04:15

How realistic is it for my conlang (derived from PIE) to do away with genders completely? How often do languages do this?

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3226
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 19 Feb 2019 04:26

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
19 Feb 2019 04:15
How realistic is it for my conlang (derived from PIE) to do away with genders completely? How often do languages do this?
I mean, at least English has that, and Armenian has, IIRC, been "genderless" since it started being written down. Bengali doesn't have gender either, does it? Can't remember modern Persian having it either, and I think it's sort "breaking down" in languages like Norwegian and maybe French? Either way, makes sense 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.


User avatar
Zekoslav
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 113
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 19 Feb 2019 11:12

Note that most of these languages, with the exception of Armenian, completely demolished the inherited PIE. declension: getting rid of genders without doing so would be difficult unless you model your sound changes precisely to merge the relevant endings.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

holbuzvala
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 173
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 19 Feb 2019 14:21

Two quick qs:

1. Is the following a reasonable sound change? (Excuse the lack of IPA precision - just looking for a general idea)

hol + do -> honno

2. Can anyone point me in the direction of articles dealing with the development of click phonemes? Clickogenesis?

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 172
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by WeepingElf » 19 Feb 2019 18:50

holbuzvala wrote:
19 Feb 2019 14:21
Two quick qs:

1. Is the following a reasonable sound change? (Excuse the lack of IPA precision - just looking for a general idea)

hol + do -> honno
I have seen weirder things; so I'd say it is possible.
2. Can anyone point me in the direction of articles dealing with the development of click phonemes? Clickogenesis?
Ah, clickogenesis. It seems to me as if such a process hasn't been observed yet. There are not many languages that have acquired clicks during their reconstructible prehistory: Dahalo (a Cushitic language), and some Bantu languages (such as Xhosa and Zulu). And apparently, there are no regular correspondences between clicks in these languages and whatever in their click-less relatives; it seems as if clicks occur only in loanwords from other languages with clicks, or in words with uncertain etymologies. (But I may have missed something; I am no expert in this.)

This has brought some scholars to the idea that clicks never evolve from anything else, from which they conclude that Proto-Human had clicks and all other languages have lost them. I don't think there's much merit to that idea, though. Just because a particular change has not been observed is no reason to assume that it never happens! I'd personally guess that clicks may evolve from doubly articulated stops involving a velar closure and another closure more forward in the mouth (which are quite common in Africa), which may evolve from clusters, e.g. tk > !. Indeed, I have the idea of an IE language on the back burner where just this happened, such that its words for 'earth' and 'bear', for instance, have clicks.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

User avatar
Zekoslav
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 113
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 20 Feb 2019 10:56

Apparently (here's the paper), the change mn > mpn in Medieval Latin and some other languages happened because the surrounding consonants produced a bilabial click. The conclusion is that any combination of stops (nasal or oral) where the first is more front than the second can produce an excrescent click through a phase of coarticulation.

So the idea for an Indo-European clicklang is actually rather plausible, and furthermore the clicks would probably keep the original phonation contrast!
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

Post Reply