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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 14 Sep 2019 05:25

Creyeditor wrote:
14 Sep 2019 00:25
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
11 Sep 2019 22:38
Creyeditor wrote:
10 Sep 2019 21:10
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
10 Sep 2019 13:37
Are changes similar to {u y → ṵ} plausible?
Is this meant to be ""becoming creaky" without any condition context? Lacking any further context on the phonological system I would say "no!", but...
If you have a breathy vs. plain contrast this can morph into a plain vs. creaky contrast (plain -> creaky and breathy -> plain). If tones enter into this, it becomes even more complex.
I'm trying to pare two ten vowel systems (eleven including the semivowel /i/) into a smaller system and was thinking about having merged vowels be laryngeal/creaky. But, it seems like that'd be unlikely from what you just said. The final vowel system from this proposal is [ɑ], [æ̰] (merger of [a, ɛ, ɪ]), [e], [ i], [o̰] (merger of [o, ɔ, ʊ]), [ṵ] (merger of [u, y]).
Okay, here is a way to include creaky voice naturalistically into your system. Phonation contrasts are usually very symetric, so it does not really help you to reduce the number of vowels.
I think you might get there if you do something about retracted tongue root. From an articulatory point of view a retracted tongue root could lead to pharyngealization (or someting similar) and this could in turn be further developed into a creaky phonation. So my idea would be:

We start with
/ɑ, a, ɛ, ɪ, e, i, o, ɔ, ʊ, u, y/ and I assume that /ɑ/ has a retracted tongue root, but /a/ does not.
All vowels with a retracted tongue root become pharyngealized instead.
/ɑ, ɛ, ɪ, ɔ, ʊ/ → /aˤ, eˤ, iˤ, oˤ, uˤ/
This gives you a system that is almost symmetric and involves phonemic
/aˤ, a, eˤ, iˤ, e, i, o, oˤ, uˤ, u, y/
Next, pharyngealized vowels become creaky voiced instead.
/aˤ, eˤ, iˤ, oˤ, uˤ/ → /a̰, ḛ, ḭ, o̰, ṵ/
This gives you a system with a nice symmetric phonation contrast and /y/ as a nice addition.
/a̰, a, ḛ, ḭ, e, i, o, o̰, ṵ, u, y/

This does not seem to solve your problem yet. If you want to reduce your vowel system, I think you should get rid of the following first, i.e. merge these with other vowels: /y/, high lax vowels, and one of the low vowels.
Here are a few ideas:
/y/ could merge either with /u/ or /i/.
High lax /ɪ, ʊ/ could either merge with the other high vowels /i/ and /u/ or with the tense mid vowels /e, o/.
The low vowels could either merge into one low vowel or /a/ could merge with /ɛ/ or /ɑ/ could merge with /ɔ/.

So one specific implementation of this.
Starting with the same inventory again:
/ɑ, a, ɛ, ɪ, e, i, o, ɔ, ʊ, u, y/
Merge /y/ and /i/ into /i/, this gives a slightly smaller system
/ɑ, a, ɛ, ɪ, e, i, o, ɔ, ʊ, u/
Then merge /ɪ/ and /e/ into /e/. Also merge /ʊ/ and /o/ to /o/.
/ɑ, a, ɛ, e, i, o, ɔ, u/
In the next step, we merge /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ into /ɔ/.
/a, ɛ, e, i, o, ɔ, u/
Et voila. a nice and tidy, small-ish vowel system.
I was going for the RTR idea, actually. But, the language is meant to sound a bit strange to our ears because it's spoken in a fictional galaxy. I'll take a bigger vowel system with creaky voice in Proto-Skaran. Thus, are [a, a̰ → ɑ, æ̰] plausible changes? Notice, that's the system's only asymmetry.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4511
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 14 Sep 2019 17:03

Well, if you already have creaky voice, [a, a̰ → ɑ, æ̰] is plausible.
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
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 296
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

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

Post by Vlürch » 14 Sep 2019 18:42

shimobaatar wrote:
03 Sep 2019 01:35
In Japanese, there was a historical shift of [ɸ] (from earlier [p]) > [h] before [a e o] and [ɸ] > [ç] before [i], with [ɸ] being preserved only before the high back vowel. If I remember correctly, this only occurred initially, since intervocalic [ɸ] became [w].
Some pronounce it as [x] before /u/, pretty much completing the /p/ -> /h/ shift, but AFAIK that's not the norm (at least yet) and AFAICT the same people (at least usually?) still have [ɸ] in free variation. The shift might be completed fully in a couple of generations? IIRC pretty much the same shift happened in (all of?) the Mongolic and (some?) Tungusic languages, and if I'm not misremembering absolutely incorrectly, some Uralic languages as well. Apparently it happened in Kannada, too. I think some Polynesian languages had it as well, right?

It's a pretty cute shift, I think, although [p] is also a cute consonant so if the result is the complete removal of [p] from a language (without it being regained through other means), it happening is not as cute as it not happening since /h/, regardless of what its exact articulation is, is not as cute. /p/ -> /b/ intervocalically, though, is a very cute shift imho. Why am I rambling about language cuteness again? I should've just stopped after the first paragraph, but I just keep typing... and when you realise/remember that I'm a 25-year-old dude with a beard and shit, this obsession with language cuteness just becomes weird...

Yeah, all my posts are pointless and I should just stop posting.

Nachtuil
greek
greek
Posts: 545
Joined: 21 Jul 2016 00:16

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

Post by Nachtuil » 14 Sep 2019 19:28

Vlürch wrote:
14 Sep 2019 18:42
shimobaatar wrote:
03 Sep 2019 01:35
In Japanese, there was a historical shift of [ɸ] (from earlier [p]) > [h] before [a e o] and [ɸ] > [ç] before [i], with [ɸ] being preserved only before the high back vowel. If I remember correctly, this only occurred initially, since intervocalic [ɸ] became [w].
Some pronounce it as [x] before /u/, pretty much completing the /p/ -> /h/ shift, but AFAIK that's not the norm (at least yet) and AFAICT the same people (at least usually?) still have [ɸ] in free variation. The shift might be completed fully in a couple of generations? IIRC pretty much the same shift happened in (all of?) the Mongolic and (some?) Tungusic languages, and if I'm not misremembering absolutely incorrectly, some Uralic languages as well. Apparently it happened in Kannada, too. I think some Polynesian languages had it as well, right?

It's a pretty cute shift, I think, although [p] is also a cute consonant so if the result is the complete removal of [p] from a language (without it being regained through other means), it happening is not as cute as it not happening since /h/, regardless of what its exact articulation is, is not as cute. /p/ -> /b/ intervocalically, though, is a very cute shift imho. Why am I rambling about language cuteness again? I should've just stopped after the first paragraph, but I just keep typing... and when you realise/remember that I'm a 25-year-old dude with a beard and shit, this obsession with language cuteness just becomes weird...

Yeah, all my posts are pointless and I should just stop posting.
Haha! I appreciate your ramblings though. Cuteness is subjective but I appreciate it. It has given me more to think about for the language I am working on.

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11690
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 14 Sep 2019 19:37

Vlürch wrote:
14 Sep 2019 18:42
shimobaatar wrote:
03 Sep 2019 01:35
In Japanese, there was a historical shift of [ɸ] (from earlier [p]) > [h] before [a e o] and [ɸ] > [ç] before [i], with [ɸ] being preserved only before the high back vowel. If I remember correctly, this only occurred initially, since intervocalic [ɸ] became [w].
Some pronounce it as [x] before /u/, pretty much completing the /p/ -> /h/ shift, but AFAIK that's not the norm (at least yet) and AFAICT the same people (at least usually?) still have [ɸ] in free variation. The shift might be completed fully in a couple of generations?


Oh, interesting! Do you know what varieties do that? I'm most familiar with the standard.
Vlürch wrote:
14 Sep 2019 18:42
IIRC pretty much the same shift happened in (all of?) the Mongolic and (some?) Tungusic languages, and if I'm not misremembering absolutely incorrectly, some Uralic languages as well. Apparently it happened in Kannada, too. I think some Polynesian languages had it as well, right?
I wouldn't be surprised. I believe that [p] > [ɸ] > [h] > [Ø] is thought to have happened, outside of clusters, in the history of the Celtic languages as well.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 14 Sep 2019 19:47

Creyeditor wrote:
14 Sep 2019 17:03
Well, if you already have creaky voice, [a, a̰ → ɑ, æ̰] is plausible.
Yep. Thanks for the help. The plan is shifting after creaky voice emerges. Thus, the protolanguage's full vowel system is /ɑ, æ̰, e, ḛ, i, ḭ, o, o̰, u, ṵ, y/.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4511
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 14 Sep 2019 21:22

That makes sense.
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
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 296
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

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

Post by Vlürch » 14 Sep 2019 21:57

Nachtuil wrote:
14 Sep 2019 19:28
Haha! I appreciate your ramblings though.
[xD]
Nachtuil wrote:
14 Sep 2019 19:28
Cuteness is subjective but I appreciate it. It has given me more to think about for the language I am working on.
Oh, I didn't even mean to ramble in relation to your conlang; I was just rambling about language cuteness because it's something I do whenever there's an even remotely cute feature being discussed. But yeah, language cuteness is definitely subjective just like every other kind of cuteness, only even more so.

Personally I think /t͡ɕ ɸ ð ɰ/ are among the cutest consonants and /ø y ɯ/ are among the cutest vowels, but a lot of people probably disagree on all of that. I know most Finns consider front rounded vowels gross and are one of the reasons "Finnish is ugly" is a common sentiment, but ever since I got into other languages I started to realise that Finnish is actually pretty cute by the same measurements that make other cute languages cute; it could be cuter, of course, but no language is 100% cute. And of course cuteness also depends on intonation, etc. and speakers' voices. I mean, even Somali and Vietnamese can sound cute when spoken softly (or just "cutely" in some abstract way?) by women with mid-high/high voices, so... even if I made the cutest conlang, it wouldn't be cute if I spoke it... [xP]
shimobaatar wrote:
14 Sep 2019 19:37
Oh, interesting! Do you know what varieties do that? I'm most familiar with the standard.
I didn't even think that it could be regional or anything, but I don't know? I mean, the contexts I've noticed it in have all been standard Japanese AFAIK (I mean, my only exposure to Japanese (except in writing) is music, films and sometimes random Youtube videos if they have subtitles (since my level in Japanese is that of a newborn tbh)), at least.

If examples in music count (those are the only ones I can think off of the top of my head), these three came to mind instantly: 1, 2 and 3. But actually, I guess the second one is the only one where it's clearly [x] rather than an outright [h] or whatever, and it does have some labialisation, so maybe it doesn't count as it's probably more like [xᵝ~x͡ɸ] or whatever and that's barely different from the standard... hmm. Still, closer to [xɯ̟] than [ɸɯ̟] in all three unless I'm deaf. The links could be marked with "nostalgia warning (or cringe warning if you're a totes no homo bro)", "vibrato warning (if you listen to the whole song or any other song by the band)" and "cuteness overload warning (unless you're a heartless monster)" respectively, but this is a serious post so I didn't do that. I mean, a serious post by my standards...

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 14 Sep 2019 23:12

I have a few questions about Modern Skaran's development.

1. Currently, in English fight is noted as /ɑ͡ɪ/ because it's /ɪ/'s only appearance in the language. How likely is it fronting to /æ͡ɪ/ to approximate its reconstructed Proto-Skaran pronunciation of /aɪ̯/? "Reconstructed" because knowledge of Ancient Common and Ancient Baikal before Early Skaran (/ɑḭ̑/ for reference) is from fragmentary inscriptions in-universe.

2. Originally, I'd planned on the diphthongs being /æ͡ɪ, æo̯, oæ̯/. But, the post-creaky voice consolidation nixed that idea. While I'd love to include /æo̯, oæ̯/, are they more likely to have occurred before or after contact with another planetary language?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 280
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » 14 Sep 2019 23:45

Vlürch wrote:
14 Sep 2019 21:57
shimobaatar wrote:
14 Sep 2019 19:37
Oh, interesting! Do you know what varieties do that? I'm most familiar with the standard.
I didn't even think that it could be regional or anything, but I don't know? I mean, the contexts I've noticed it in have all been standard Japanese AFAIK (I mean, my only exposure to Japanese (except in writing) is music, films and sometimes random Youtube videos if they have subtitles (since my level in Japanese is that of a newborn tbh)), at least.

If examples in music count (those are the only ones I can think off of the top of my head), these three came to mind instantly: 1, 2 and 3. But actually, I guess the second one is the only one where it's clearly [x] rather than an outright [h] or whatever, and it does have some labialisation, so maybe it doesn't count as it's probably more like [xᵝ~x͡ɸ] or whatever and that's barely different from the standard... hmm. Still, closer to [xɯ̟] than [ɸɯ̟] in all three unless I'm deaf.
Thanks, that might help me with a problem in the allophony of Late Andanese, which is partly modeled on Japanese. perhaps Late Andanese /hu/ can be [xu] when preceded by a vowel-only syllable, but remain [hʷu] when preceded by an ordinary CV syllable.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

Nortaneous
greek
greek
Posts: 641
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 13:28

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

Post by Nortaneous » 16 Sep 2019 06:51

Vlürch wrote:
14 Sep 2019 21:57
The links could be marked with "nostalgia warning (or cringe warning if you're a totes no homo bro)",
Dir en Grey isn't that gay - look up Daigo Stardust

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 296
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

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

Post by Vlürch » 16 Sep 2019 11:46

Is it "acceptable" to use several different reconstructions of the same proto-language (with obviously slightly different results if the same words were derived from) as sources for vocabulary in a conlang that's meant to be naturalistic? What I mean is, does it require additional justification, like one set being conically loanwords and another being conically native or whatever?

Asking because I started working on a "Tibeto-Altaic" conlang; basically a priori but with vocabulary and some grammar that's meant to combine Sino-Tibetan and Altaic languages (regardless of whether Altaic is a genetic family or not), and although I have some sound changes that can make Tibeto-Burman words sound like Altaic words and vice versa, a part of me feels like the timeline just doesn't add up for that to be realistic. Like, I have some "reverse" sound changes that would have to be relics from a conical Pre-Proto-Sino-Tibetan but also some of the same sound changes in words that are only Proto-Mongolic or whatever...

Should I just not bother with sound changes being chronologically consistent between proto-languages if the results are cool? I mean, a "Tibeto-Altaic" language that isn't a creole is probably such a ridiculous idea to begin with that it's not exactly the most realistic thing from the start... but it is meant to be "naturalistic", so...
Pabappa wrote:
14 Sep 2019 23:45
perhaps Late Andanese /hu/ can be [xu] when preceded by a vowel-only syllable, but remain [hʷu] when preceded by an ordinary CV syllable.
Seems like a weird conditioning environment for that allophony, but pretty interesting. I'd assume the reason behind the Japanese [x] is decreased rounding of the vowel, though? I mean, I could swear I've heard full-blown [xu] occasionally, but still, when the vowel is usually [ɯ̟ᵝ], it makes sense for the consonant to be [ɸ], and if it's unrounded all the way to [ɯ̟], it makes sense for it to be [x]. Or at least that seems logical to me since they're more "uniform" and as such easier pronunciations.
Nortaneous wrote:
16 Sep 2019 06:51
Dir en Grey isn't that gay
True, but in my experience guys who're not at all into visual kei tend to have strong "LOL GAAAAY!!!" reactions to their old videos (or even just hearing their old songs), the one I linked in particular. Or any 90's or early 00's visual kei, really, not to say that newer stuff wouldn't elicit that reaction from them as well, although I'd say it generally doesn't as much for some reason.

Maybe the "LOL GAAAAY!!!" isn't as common anymore? But I mean, at least some 100% srs bsns metalheads still get incredibly butthurt if you tell them you like any band that has ever been labelled visual kei by anyone. There are literally people out there who refuse to acknowledge that this song is metal because they used to be visual kei (and arguably are again if the definition that it's just an aesthetic and not anything concrete is used). Like, what kind of mental gymnastics does that require?

And in case it's not obvious, my favourite band of all time is Dir en grey. They've literally never done anything that sounds bad. There are other bands that have never done anything that sounds bad, too, but usually those are bands that haven't been active nearly as long as them, and honestly I can't think of any other band that's as consistently great while being as versatile.
Nortaneous wrote:
16 Sep 2019 06:51
look up Daigo Stardust
Hmm, some serious David Bowie vibes all around. And sure enough, Wikipedia explains why. But mmh, this seems fairly gay and definitely in a good way.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1687
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 16 Sep 2019 15:09

Vlürch wrote:
16 Sep 2019 11:46
Should I just not bother with sound changes being chronologically consistent between proto-languages if the results are cool? I mean, a "Tibeto-Altaic" language that isn't a creole is probably such a ridiculous idea to begin with that it's not exactly the most realistic thing from the start... but it is meant to be "naturalistic", so...
I don't understand.

First, if by 'Tibeto-Altaic' you mean a Tibetan language that looks like it's been part of the Altaic sprachbund, then what on earth is 'ridiculous' about that? Tibetan languages are spoken adjacent to Altaic languages, the two families have had considerably cultural contact, and it's very likely that much of what is now altaic 'territory' was once (Sino-)Tibetan-speaking. So what's weird about the idea that a (macro-)Tibetan language might have survived in the Altai mountains and been influenced by neighbouring languages!?

Second: what? What do you mean 'chronologically consistent between proto-languages'?

Each language has a proto-language. Its (non-borrowed) words are derived from that of the proto-language through mostly regular soundchanges. I'm not sure what your issue with this is. What is "conical pre-proto-sino-tibetan" and how can words in a tibetan language be "proto-mongolic"?

Grasping at straws here, are you saying you want recent loanwords to retrospectively apply three or four thousand years of soundchanges that happened in a language that those loanwords were never found in? Why would you want to do that!?

User avatar
LinguistCat
sinic
sinic
Posts: 202
Joined: 06 May 2017 07:48

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

Post by LinguistCat » 16 Sep 2019 18:48

Salmoneus wrote:
16 Sep 2019 15:09
Vlürch wrote:
16 Sep 2019 11:46
Should I just not bother with sound changes being chronologically consistent between proto-languages if the results are cool? I mean, a "Tibeto-Altaic" language that isn't a creole is probably such a ridiculous idea to begin with that it's not exactly the most realistic thing from the start... but it is meant to be "naturalistic", so...
I don't understand.

First, if by 'Tibeto-Altaic' you mean a Tibetan language that looks like it's been part of the Altaic sprachbund, then what on earth is 'ridiculous' about that? Tibetan languages are spoken adjacent to Altaic languages, the two families have had considerably cultural contact, and it's very likely that much of what is now altaic 'territory' was once (Sino-)Tibetan-speaking. So what's weird about the idea that a (macro-)Tibetan language might have survived in the Altai mountains and been influenced by neighbouring languages!?

Second: what? What do you mean 'chronologically consistent between proto-languages'?

Each language has a proto-language. Its (non-borrowed) words are derived from that of the proto-language through mostly regular soundchanges. I'm not sure what your issue with this is. What is "conical pre-proto-sino-tibetan" and how can words in a tibetan language be "proto-mongolic"?

Grasping at straws here, are you saying you want recent loanwords to retrospectively apply three or four thousand years of soundchanges that happened in a language that those loanwords were never found in? Why would you want to do that!?
Sal, I think a lot of your misunderstanding comes from thinking Vlürch is deriving forward to a daughterlang and not back to a proto-language connecting the sino-Tebetan and Altaic families. And the loanwords Vlürch is referring to are not modern loans.

More of your misunderstanding comes from not realizing that "conical" is supposed to be "canonical", what I assume means the reconstructions that have already been made by other linguists.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1687
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 16 Sep 2019 20:07

Huh? But he can't 'derive back' (i.e. reconstruct) the protolanguage from which both Altaic and Sino-Tibetan descend, because there never was such a language. Or at least, not for tens of thousands of years.

As a result, there are no good reconstructions of proto-Tibeto-Altaic possible, because if they were, it wouldn't be a conlang, it would be an astonishing scientific breakthrough.

Obviously, you CAN imagine that a certain language gave rise to both families. But the nature of that language is arbitrary - it might as well be one thing as another, because everything is 100% wrong. Just as, if you had to reconstruct the common ancestor of English "red" and Motu "kakakaka", it doesn't make much sense to ask if we should reconstruct *bob or *mnluxiptek - since no consisted soundchanges can be constructed no matter what option we choose! [unless, I suppose, we choose *red|kakakaka and so on, and have a consistent rule than English drops clicks and all post-click sounds, and Motu drops clicks and all pre-click sounds...]

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3319
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 16 Sep 2019 21:21

As far as I understood Vlürch, it seems to be:

a) Proto-Sino-Tibetan has a number of reconstructions
b) When Vlürch uses one reconstruction (say, Reconstruction X), starting with one word, the resulting descendant sounds less Altaic
c) When Vlürch uses one reconstruction (say, Reconstruction Y), starting with one word, the resulting descendant sounds more Altaic
d) Is it reasonable for Vlürch to use Reconstruction X and Reconstruction Y, depending on which result is "better", or
e) Should Vlürch stick to just Reconstruction X or Reconstruction Y regardless, or
f) Can Vlürch use Reconstruction X most of the time, but then use Reconstruction Y where the results are "better", but say that those words entered the language at some later stage, but still relatively early on (I'd assume something along the lines of, say, Proto-Anatolian words re-entering Late Proto-Indo-European).
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.

this_is_an_account
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 152
Joined: 14 Aug 2018 06:33

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

Post by this_is_an_account » 16 Sep 2019 22:08

English has this construction that acts similarly to complementization that uses the genitive, eg:

It's not a problem that he left.
His leaving is not a problem.

What if a language had a similar construction, but had a marked possessive case rather than a genitive case, eg:

3SG house-POSS
"His house."

3SG leave-POSS
"His leaving."

Is it plausible for the possessive case on the verb to be re-interpretted as a non-finite marker?

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4511
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 16 Sep 2019 22:50

There are languages where most if not all non-finite clauses look like nominalizations, so yes.
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]

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 17 Sep 2019 02:05

Of my setting's two main languages, Skaran's (SKR) a creole of the Empire's planetary languages that's used for intraempire communications, and Galactic Standard's (GXS) a SKR-based creole with influences from languages spoken throughout the galaxy. Are features from GXS likely to bleed into SKR over time?
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on 17 Sep 2019 18:43, edited 2 times in total.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 296
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

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

Post by Vlürch » 17 Sep 2019 13:34

sangi39 wrote:
16 Sep 2019 21:21
As far as I understood Vlürch, it seems to be:
Yeah, that's exactly one part of what I was asking. I know I worded the question really weirdly, half because I was super-tired and hadn't slept in like 48 hours or whatever, and half because it's just a weird question. It's just that even though an "ambiguously Tibeto-Altaic language" is pretty nonsensical, I'd still prefer it to be as naturalistic as possible...
LinguistCat wrote:
16 Sep 2019 18:48
More of your misunderstanding comes from not realizing that "conical" is supposed to be "canonical", what I assume means the reconstructions that have already been made by other linguists.
No, that's kind of the opposite of what I meant. By "conincal" I mean "conlang/conworld-internal"; it's con(structed) as an adjective/adverb on its own, and I never remember that it might not be obvious to everyone that that's what it means. You know, for example, "conically the language had its own writing system before the adoption of the Latin alphabet, but the romanisation was simple transliteration and not a phonetic alphabet" could be used to justify orthographic irregularities similar to what English has without actually having to make a conscript, or "an a posteriori language derived from Sumerian, spoken in France, because conically the Sumerians migrated to France" or whatever.

So, "conical Pre-Proto-Sino-Tibetan" is a hypothetical precursor to Proto-Sino-Tibetan that (almost certainly) never existed but is necessary to enable certain sound changes, like Proto-Sino-Tibetan's initial /*x/ -> conlang's /p/; because /p/ -> /x/ is attested (and was just discussed ITT lol) but the opposite doesn't really make sense, the conlang's /p/ in those words has to be from a "Pre-Proto-Sino-Tibetan" which had /*p/ that became /*x/ in Proto-Sino-Tibetan. There aren't many sound changes like that (in fact, this is the only one so far that couldn't be justified some other way), but some of the sound changes from PST are pretty big too... and some chronological implications may come with that, too.
Salmoneus wrote:
16 Sep 2019 20:07
Huh? But he can't 'derive back' (i.e. reconstruct) the protolanguage from which both Altaic and Sino-Tibetan descend, because there never was such a language. Or at least, not for tens of thousands of years.
Of course, but it's not supposed to be Proto-Tibeto-Altaic but a modern-day language (isolate?) that has some kind of ancient relation to both Altaic and Sino-Tibetan languages in such a way that if its relationship with them was evaluated, it couldn't be conclusively connected to one or the other. I guess in practice it's a mixed language regardless of how I go about it, but the mixing would've had to go back to at least Proto-Altaic and Proto-Sino-Tibetan times, and at the very least have one (unconstructed) a priori substrate language muddling things up.
Salmoneus wrote:
16 Sep 2019 15:09
What do you mean 'chronologically consistent between proto-languages'?
While Proto-Altaic and Proto-Sino-Tibetan may have been spoken around the same time, obviously Proto-Sino-Tibetan and Proto-Tibeto-Burman weren't. I'm deriving a lot of the language's vocabulary from Proto-Tibeto-Burman but use the same sound changes as from Proto-Sino-Tibetan, but also different reconstructions of Proto-Sino-Tibetan with slightly different sound changes.

Examples of both:
A) Long vowels get broken up into two identical vowels separated by /ɣ/ in vocabulary derived from both Proto-Sino-Tibetan and Proto-Tibeto-Burman.
B) I'm deriving /fəj/ from <*phj> in Coblin's reconstruction of PST but /p/ from <*phj> in Starostin's reconstruction of PST.

I suppose A doesn't require that much justification, but what about B? It's not like there are many words with <*phj> in the first place so maybe I could just handwave it, but if in the future I end up having more different sound changes from different reconstructions... well, is it at all naturalistic without one group being conically loanwords or whatever?

Post Reply