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

[yangfiretiger121]

... the palatial and velar lateral fricatives ...

Palatial sounds are made with the tongue pressed against the palace.

I assume autocorrect “corrected” palatal to palatial?

Yep. Damn phone!

[yangfiretiger121]

Thanks for the help, guys.

At one time, Sjialfa had voiceless rhotic, lateral, palatal, and palatal lateral flaps [ɾ̥, ɺ̥, c̆, ʎ̮̊]. Are the changes to the rhotic, lateral, and palatal lateral ones stated below plausible?

{ɾ̥ ɺ̥ → ɬ → ʎ̝̊ ()}
[ʎ̮̊ → ʎ̝̊ () → ʟ̝ ()]

The first is fairly plausible. The second I find less plausible, but only because [ʟ̝] is sort of rare. Also, I assume it retains voicelessness or no?

Got it. Yes, the palatal and velar lateral fricatives are/would be voiceless.

If I make the changes, would retention of <r> or switch to <l> be more likely?

For the record, I'm only aware of the IPA extensions for the palatal and velar lateral fricatives [ʎ̝̊ (), ʎ̝ (̬), ʟ̝̊ (), ʟ̝ (̬)] being in the Gentium, Charis, and Doulos fonts at the moment.

[Vlürch]

  

  

Am I the only one who sees those ugly boxes with numbers that mean I don't have the necessary font installed? I haven't seen boxes like that in a while (in facts, not in months), but now within two days I've seen them here and on another site, and both times googling them revealed that they're in the "Private Use Area", which, if I understand correctly, means how they display depends on the font since they can be assigned at will by font creators or something like that? What's up with that? Is there some new fancy phone font or something? (I don't have a smartphone and just use a laptop, so if that's it... well, shit. I guess I'll have to get used to seeing boxes...)

Sorry that this is kind of off-topic.

[yangfiretiger121]

  

  

Am I the only one who sees those ugly boxes with numbers that mean I don't have the necessary font installed? I haven't seen boxes like that in a while (in facts, not in months), but now within two days I've seen them here and on another site, and both times googling them revealed that they're in the "Private Use Area", which, if I understand correctly, means how they display depends on the font since they can be assigned at will by font creators or something like that? What's up with that? Is there some new fancy phone font or something? (I don't have a smartphone and just use a laptop, so if that's it... well, shit. I guess I'll have to get used to seeing boxes...)

Sorry that this is kind of off-topic.

Happens with phones as well. I don't plan on, actually, using he extensions unless they become widely-supported. Just wanted to let you guys know alternatives exist, despite being poorly-supported.

[Ser]

Happens with phones as well. I don't plan on, actually, using he extensions unless they become widely-supported. Just wanted to let you guys know alternatives exist, despite being poorly-supported.

What extensions are you referring to? This is the Private Use Area, and its purpose is to never be standardized, being strictly font-dependent instead.

[yangfiretiger121]

Happens with phones as well. I don't plan on, actually, using the extensions unless they become widely-supported. Just wanted to let you guys know alternatives exist, despite being poorly-supported.

What extensions are you referring to? This is the Private Use Area, and its purpose is to never be standardized, being strictly font-dependent instead.

Extensions to the IPA. Also, meant symbols.

[Ser]

Extensions to the IPA. Also, meant symbols.

Oh, okay. The problem is, if you can't specify the font in question (as is the case in this forum), then it's not a good idea to use the Private Use Area.

[yangfiretiger121]

Extensions to the IPA. Also, meant symbols.

Oh, okay. The problem is, if you can't specify the font in question (as is the case in this forum), then it's not a good idea to use the Private Use Area.

I've mentioned that they're in the SIL's Gentium, Charis, and Doulos fonts before.

[Zekoslav]

Concerning that case-preserving Romance language I imagined earlier, a major weak point in Latin case system is that almost all prepositions go with the accusative and the ablative... which merge due to sound changes. So, the nominative would be used for subjects, the genitive for possessors, the dative for indirect objects and the accusative for everything else. It's easy to see why, given that situation, the genitive got supplanted by de + acc. and the dative by ad + acc. in most Romance languages.

One way to repair this would be to introduce prepositions which go with the genitive and especially with the dative. But I'm not sure how to do that... any ideas?

[shimobaatar]

Concerning that case-preserving Romance language I imagined earlier, a major weak point in Latin case system is that almost all prepositions go with the accusative and the ablative... which merge due to sound changes. So, the nominative would be used for subjects, the genitive for possessors, the dative for indirect objects and the accusative for everything else. It's easy to see why, given that situation, the genitive got supplanted by de + acc. and the dative by ad + acc. in most Romance languages.

One way to repair this would be to introduce prepositions which go with the genitive and especially with the dative. But I'm not sure how to do that... any ideas?

Just went back and found the post you're referencing; It sounds like an interesting idea!

Assuming you're still imagining this as a Crimean/Euxinian/Black Sea Romance language with Greek and/or Gothic influence, the first solution that comes to mind for me is to have some of that influence come into play here. My knowledge of Greek, Ancient or Modern, doesn't include an understanding of how prepositions interact with the case system, but I've read a fair bit about Gothic in the past few years. If I'm not mistaken, prepositions typically go with the accusative or dative. Some can go with either one, typically with the accusative being used to indicate movement and the dative being used to indicate a stationary position. I believe I remember something similar from my time learning German.

[Zekoslav]

Concerning that case-preserving Romance language I imagined earlier, a major weak point in Latin case system is that almost all prepositions go with the accusative and the ablative... which merge due to sound changes. So, the nominative would be used for subjects, the genitive for possessors, the dative for indirect objects and the accusative for everything else. It's easy to see why, given that situation, the genitive got supplanted by de + acc. and the dative by ad + acc. in most Romance languages.

One way to repair this would be to introduce prepositions which go with the genitive and especially with the dative. But I'm not sure how to do that... any ideas?

Just went back and found the post you're referencing; It sounds like an interesting idea!

Assuming you're still imagining this as a Crimean/Euxinian/Black Sea Romance language with Greek and/or Gothic influence, the first solution that comes to mind for me is to have some of that influence come into play here. My knowledge of Greek, Ancient or Modern, doesn't include an understanding of how prepositions interact with the case system, but I've read a fair bit about Gothic in the past few years. If I'm not mistaken, prepositions typically go with the accusative or dative. Some can go with either one, typically with the accusative being used to indicate movement and the dative being used to indicate a stationary position. I believe I remember something similar from my time learning German.

Thanks for your feedback! I edited the post to include a link to the original post.

I haven't decided where the language would be spoken or when would it split from other Romance languages. Right now, I have a feeling that in order to preserve the case system it would have to be a Sardinian- or at least Romanian-like outlier, and that will obviously have consequences for the vowel system, for palatalisation and for other things.

Which prepositions go with which cases seems to depend mainly on which Proto-Indo-European cases merged with which other cases in the development of individual languages. PIE cases had rather specific if generic roles, like Nom: subject, Acc: direct object and movement into, Dat: indirect object and movement to but not into, Abl: movement away from, Loc: stationary position, Inst: Agents, Instruments and generic adverbials.

Apparently, Germanic merged the locative with the dative, which is why the dative is used for stationary position and the accusative for movement. Greek did the same, and also merged the ablative with the genitive: the result was that in addition to their primary syntactic roles each oblique case could be used with prepositions indicating movement. However, in Latin the locative and the instrumental merged with the ablative, so the dative and the genitive were left prepositionless (spellcheck doesn't think this is an actual word, but it's useful ), and all prepositions were used with the accusative and the ablative. When these two merged because of sound changes, all prepositions were used with the accusative and that's probably why it tends to replace other cases in Romance.

I'll have to revise my Latin case usage and see what I can do with the dative to make it more robust.

[Clio]

I was going to chime in with some information about Ancient Greek genitives with prepositions, but Zekoslav said better in one sentence what I would have said in my entire post.

Instead I'll say: Zekoslav, have you considered creating new adpositions from nouns? Classical Latin already had gen. + causa, + gratia, + *tenus* (also found with the ablative). There's also *ergo* (rarely and I believe archaic as a postposition).

P.S.: Ælfwine, flattered to see you posted my sketch of a Romlang with a common gender. I should play around with that more, maybe have a look at verbs.

[Zekoslav]

Yep, my original intention was to shift gratia and causa from G to D, because 2nd declension borrows the pronominal dative ending -ī, creating the same syncretism which existed between the genitive and the dative in the 1st declension. Later the alternative 1st declension genitive ending -aes would prevail to indicate possession and generate an analogical second declension genitive ending -īs. But it sounds a bit convoluted and I'm thinking if there may be a better way.

Inventing prepositions from nouns is still my main option. If French could do it with casa > chez, I can definitely do it as well... I only have to think about which nouns to use and which case: genitive or dative? Maybe it could end up with the dative if it was used as an adverb accompanying a dative of motion first... like *vādō Mārcī, casam "I'm going to Mark, in the house" > "I'm going chez Mark" ? But I'd like to refresh my knowledge of Latin to see if it's plausible in the least.

[Ælfwine]

While a native romance language to Crimea wouldn't be too implausible, I think the more plausible idea would be to derive it from 13th and 14th century Ligurian, as the Genoese had trading outposts in the Crimea for some time. However, I reckon you want something different from that.

Alternatively, you could try something from early Daco-Romance (possibly Moldovan) and have your speakers migrate to the Crimea. This way you could keep the case system intact.

Also to keep in mind: Mariupol/Crimean Greek (and likewise my Gothic conlang) lost both the genitive and dative cases. It seems like the dative was lost first and then the genitive more recently fell out of use. Knowing this, I am also curious to how my prepositions would develop.

@Clio yes it was an interesting thought experiment, I would definitely like to see the outcome of verbs.

[Clio]

Maybe it could end up with the dative if it was used as an adverb accompanying a dative of motion first... like *vādō Mārcī, casam "I'm going to Mark, in the house" > "I'm going chez Mark" ? But I'd like to refresh my knowledge of Latin to see if it's plausible in the least.

My Sprachgefühl for Classical Latin says an emphatic no to the "dative of motion" (but perhaps it existed outside of the elevated literary registers?). I think the genitive makes perfect sense here, though. Poetic Latin permitted the bare accusative of motion, which is what we'd have in the phrase *vādō casam; and Classical Attic Greek and maybe also Koine had εἰς 'to' + genitive meaning 'to such-and-such's house'. Why not make casam an adposition meaning 'to' with the genitive?

What if your Latin speakers used a lot of ethical datives with words like donum? donum Marco do 'I give Marcus a gift' but also donum Marco id facio 'I do this as a gift/favor for Marcus' and then donum Marco has epistulas Mariae do 'I give these letters to Maria for Marcus' (or even donum Marco has epistulas Mariae casam fero 'I bring these letters chez Maria for Marcus'). For other words to make into postpositions you could look at other deverbal nouns created from verbs which regularly take the dative.

Maybe you could also use compound verbs that take the dative: absens tibi id facio 'I do this far away from you' vs. abs te eo 'I go away from you' and adsens tibi, id facio 'I do this next to you'.

Hopefully something about this helps.

[Zekoslav]

All of your suggestions are very helpful, especially deriving prepositions that go with the dative from participles (deriving prepositions that go with the genitive from nouns is rather obvious, and it's the dative that needs buffing up in order not to merge with the genitive completely). I've never really studied Latin syntax so I don't know what's idiomatic and what isn't.

All in all, having a French + Romanian case system of Nom, Acc and Gen/Dat isn't problematic, what's problematic is having a separate genitive and dative. I realize this isn't too realistic given the state of Latin case and preposition usage, but let's see whatever convoluted ways we can find to give more use to the dative and the genitive.

So we could have prepositions with the genitive from nouns like casa (or domus if we keep a more archaic vocabulary), causa, gratia, and prepositions with the dative from participles from verbs which go with the dative. We don't need a lot... as long as we make the dative used for location and accusative/ablative for motion as your examples suggest this should be enough to make the distinction more stable.

[Ser]

Concerning that case-preserving Romance language I imagined earlier, a major weak point in Latin case system is that almost all prepositions go with the accusative and the ablative... which merge due to sound changes. So, the nominative would be used for subjects, the genitive for possessors, the dative for indirect objects and the accusative for everything else. It's easy to see why, given that situation, the genitive got supplanted by de + acc. and the dative by ad + acc. in most Romance languages.

One way to repair this would be to introduce prepositions which go with the genitive and especially with the dative. But I'm not sure how to do that... any ideas?

I don't think the genitive needs to have its uses expanded to survive: possession is probably prominent enough. The genitive is the only case that has survived in English (the queen's) and Swedish (kvinnans) and it's mostly just a possessor marker in both languages, although it's true this didn't prove enough for it to survive in German (it's still there but is currently moribund). However, it might really be necessary to reinforce the dative with uses beyond indirect object marking.

If you want to expand the genitive into the realm of prepositions, it might be useful to look at Romanian. It's true that, because the Latin accusative and ablative merged a long time ago, all the inherited Latin prepositions simply use the accusative in Romanian. However, the genitive is used in many new prepositions created from preposition + adverb sequences: ad suprā > asupra 'about, regarding', dē ad suprā > deasupra 'above', in ab anteā > înaintea 'before', dē dē subtus illud > dedesubtul 'under', in faciē > în faţa 'in front of', dē ad longum illud > de-a lungul 'alongside' are all followed by the genitive.

You don't necessarily have to spread the dative this way though. The dative in Russian is barely used with 4 or 5 prepositions (only one of which is prominent: к 'to', semantically a dative in itself!), but has a variety of other uses.
- Since indirect objects are often human, the dative can take over the object of verbs where the object is typically human, especially those that are often non-physical and non-direct (so often psychological or social, or involving speech), like "help", "remind", "call", "marry", "thank", "beg", "pray", "listen to/obey", "complain to", "care for".
- A lot of languages also use indirect objects for human experiencers in key verbs like "like", "disgust", "need", "lack", "long for/miss".
- It is also common in causatives for the person that is allowed, encouraged or forced to do something.
- There is sometimes a certain unease about double accusative constructions that makes reflexive verbs use a reflexive indirect object if a direct object of sorts is involved ("make myself important" with myself.ACC vs. "make food for myself" with myself.DAT).
The dative is used in Russian in at least some verbs of every one of these categories, along with regular ditransitives, and that's been enough for it to survive.

It might be worth mentioning that Romanian uses the dative in a few prepositions, mostly derived from verbs and either meaning "thanks to" (because Romanian "thank" verbs take the dative) or otherwise very formal ones calqued recently from French (like Fr. contrairement à > Rom. contrar + DAT). (The genitive-dative difference matters for personal pronouns. Asupra takes genitive pronouns but datorită 'thanks to' (< dēbitōrem + verbal -ī(re) + participle -ta) takes dative pronouns.)

Like Clio I would not recommend using the dative of motion since in Classical Latin it was mostly limited to poetry.

[Zekoslav]

Thanks for this information! I knew I had to research Romanian more... so, all inherited prepositions going with the accusative didn't make the genitive be replaced with de + acc. and the dative with ad + acc, and Romanian innovated prepositions to go with the genitive and the dative to boot! The genitive will naturally be buffed with prepositions as long as some are innovated from adverbs and adverbial noun phrases. As for the dative, there's precedent for using it for human objects, experiencers and causatives... as for prepositions, I'll definitely include "thanks to" since it sort of suggests itself and I may include more if they look natural and not convoluted (that's coming from a person who had the idea to turn the PIE. mediopassive into an interrogative/mirative mood through some pragmatic jugglery... just because verb forms resulting from the agglutination of 'by you it's being done' looked pretty).

As for the dative of motion, I admit my native language influenced that proposal, but if it's rare in Latin then good riddance.


Since morphology is what started this inquiry, let's take another look at the morphology:

Code: Select all

  - |   sg.   |   pl.   | - |   sg.   |   pl.   |
| N |  -US    |  -Ī     | N |  -A     |  -Æ     |
| A |  -UM    |  -ŌS    | A |  -AM    |  -ĀS    |
| G |  -ĪS    |  -ŌRUM  | G |  -ÆS    |  -ĀRUM  |
| D |  -Ī     |  -ŌRUM  | D |  -Æ     |  -ĀRUM  |

I wanted to preserve an ultimately lost Vulgar Latin 1st declension genitive ending -ÆS. This ending would reintroduce a morphological distinction between the genitive and the dative in the 1st declension, and could be easily copied by the 2nd declension giving -ĪS from older and attested -Ī. As for the dative ending -Ī, I took it over from the pronominal declension: apparently it was quite common in earlier written and presumably spoken (this would be a predecessor to "standar" Vulgar Latin ILLUĪ and ILLÆĪ) Latin to have ILLĪ for the masculine/neuter and ILLÆ for the feminine. As for the plural, merging the two cases seemed natural given that all languages except Sardinian derive their dative plural from the genitive.

Now, preserving -ÆS requires preserving final /s/, so preserving the distinction between the Nom and the Acc arose naturally as a consequence. This also means the language probably can't be a too close relative of Romanian.

What do you think about this paradigm (sound changes are WIP... I'm leaning towards the Sardinian development of vowels since that would mean 3rd declension endings G -IS, D -Ī become the same as the 2nd declension ones.)?

[Khemehekis]

Regarding this matter Tolkien said his (elvish) languages to have been designed with the purpose of being as beautiful as they could have been according to his phonoaesthetic taste. And I think that's what I lack: phonoaesthetic taste! (or however it could be called like). I cannot discern among lot's of different roots that could be assigned to an only meaning and I just use logical strategies to choose whether a word should be included or not. For example; nēr for "man". But then I realise Quenya already uses nér (ner-) for "man"! So I start trying to coin some monosyllabic words that could fit the purpose and I find out - I don't like any of them! (Happens always the same way) so I give up for a while just to try again and achieve doing nothing.

Maybe you could take some inspiration from Kankonian. All the native root words in Kankonian were formed to phonaesthetically sound like what they mean. A sampling:

Spoiler:

wiri: man
mopiga: woman
makeke: little boy
malazi: little girl
gudum: red
rahat: orange
hilis: yellow
kran: green
wowum: blue
kratsh: purple
blan: brown
dunia: dark brown
likt: pink
kiul: white
viriz: grey
karak: black
phizur: to sleep
howo: to wash
abam: to eat
wakhir: to drink
wana: water
pomosh: air
luoi: fire
nan: earth
lataz: metal
vare: plant
venta: animal
shoip: tomato
shoip: pulse
verim: bird
tairak: fish
peksis: insect
karmas: body
*ine (the * is a velar lateral): hair
bwolwo: eye
ne*et: nose
shpad: mouth
likak: neck
khod: ear
arig: tongue
arik: word
fulphas: cheek
stiv: shoulder
gue*: arm
angi: leg
pumus: hand
gumu: foot
puea: wind
heles: sun
varu: cloud
awivi: rain
ubru: snow
hayaz: star
huzhus: planet
rimi: long
kab: short
burk: jeavy
luskas: lightweight
phahus: deep
malis: shadow
stalaz: wide, broad
shizid: narrow
trils: high
mutz: low
badku: wall
shakti: house
yayar: to sing
oyez: to say
heyiyet: to scream
hasa: to yell
mukluk: to ask (a question)
egeletz: to ask (request)
mui: and
is: I
ar: you (sing.)
wan: she, he, it
wir: we
deir: all of you
mem: they

[Thrice Xandvii]

I don't see how any word, aside from onomatopoeia, can sound like what it means. These examples you have seem to prove the point for me.