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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 313
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 07 Nov 2019 18:19

A video by Biblaridion talks about this in some depth. The fact that multiple languages turned some kind of perfect marker into an evidential was surprising to me (I thought the situation in Bulgarian and Macedonian was due to Turkish influence, but Turkish seems to have done the same by itself... otherwise personal evidence past combining with hearsay evidence past to form a pluperfect makes absolutely no sense!).
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

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 » 09 Nov 2019 07:38

How naturalistic is it for a language to have an auxiliary (derived from a verb meaning do) that takes person/maybe tense (its an agglutinative language so the two are completely separate) that comes after a serial verb construction? It would replace person/tense on the meaning verbs in the construction.

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4610
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes » 09 Nov 2019 16:06

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
09 Nov 2019 07:38
How naturalistic is it for a language to have an auxiliary (derived from a verb meaning do) that takes person/maybe tense (its an agglutinative language so the two are completely separate) that comes after a serial verb construction? It would replace person/tense on the meaning verbs in the construction.
That sounds entirely reasonable. Although a serial verb interpretation may well be the best analysis for your language (as this depends on other aspects of grammar and syntax), I could also see this as a kind of nominalisation of the preceding verb string.

A: What did you do yesterday?
B: Oh, I just did some go.out-buy.stuff-ing.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4518
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 12 Nov 2019 18:52

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
09 Nov 2019 07:38
How naturalistic is it for a language to have an auxiliary (derived from a verb meaning do) that takes person/maybe tense (its an agglutinative language so the two are completely separate) that comes after a serial verb construction? It would replace person/tense on the meaning verbs in the construction.
If you wonder about the position of the auxiliary, I think there is a crosslinguistic tendency. SOV languages tend to be head final. In these languages auxiliaries tend to follow verbs. So a possible order would be Subject - Object - Verb (-Verb) - Auxiliary. Was that also what you were asking for?
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
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5780
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 12 Nov 2019 23:25

I don't know how naturalistic it is that the gender endings tend to be phonological opposites to the voice vowels.

e.g. /a u/ is basically the ablaut vowel for tenses in the active voice while /e i/ are the ablaut vowels for tenses in the passive voice. [saras vs sares, sarus vs saris]
But /a u/ are also the case endings for nouns in the feminine gender while /e i/ are the case endings for nouns in the masculine gender. [haze/hazi "man" vs sama/samu "woman"]

To compound the weirdness, deverbal nouns derived from verbs in the passive voice tend to have masculine gender while deverbal nouns derived from verbs in the passive voice tend to have feminine gender. Thus, it creates this weird alternation in words like such as a-mlek-a (passive deverbal) and a-mlak-e (active deverbal) which feels artificial.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2839
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 13 Nov 2019 00:20

Ahzoh wrote:
12 Nov 2019 23:25
To compound the weirdness, deverbal nouns derived from verbs in the passive voice tend to have masculine gender while deverbal nouns derived from verbs in the passive voice tend to have feminine gender. Thus, it creates this weird alternation in words like such as a-mlek-a (passive deverbal) and a-mlak-e (active deverbal) which feels artificial.
This sounds like the sort of unplanned order emerging from interlocking systems that would give me the most exquisite of conlanging satisfaction. I will gladly take it off your hands if you don't want it. [:P]

User avatar
kiwikami
roman
roman
Posts: 1345
Joined: 26 May 2012 17:24
Location: the first star to the right and straight on 'till mid-afternoon

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

Post by kiwikami » 15 Nov 2019 05:42

Given all the changes I've made to Alál in the last few years, I'd like to get back to putting together proper documentation for it. Since I'll have to rewrite almost all of what I wrote in the existing Alál thread to bring it up to date, do y'all think it'd be more efficient / less messy to just start a new thread for it? I'm not certain if that'd be a forum faux pas (you'd think I'd pick up on these things after seven years here, but no), but it'd be nice to have a clean slate since I'll be starting the write-up from scratch.
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2839
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 15 Nov 2019 07:40

kiwikami wrote:
15 Nov 2019 05:42
Given all the changes I've made to Alál in the last few years, I'd like to get back to putting together proper documentation for it. Since I'll have to rewrite almost all of what I wrote in the existing Alál thread to bring it up to date, do y'all think it'd be more efficient / less messy to just start a new thread for it? I'm not certain if that'd be a forum faux pas (you'd think I'd pick up on these things after seven years here, but no), but it'd be nice to have a clean slate since I'll be starting the write-up from scratch.
I don't believe there'd be a problem with that. It's been done before without issue.

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4610
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes » 15 Nov 2019 10:40

Dormouse559 wrote:
15 Nov 2019 07:40
kiwikami wrote:
15 Nov 2019 05:42
Given all the changes I've made to Alál in the last few years, I'd like to get back to putting together proper documentation for it. Since I'll have to rewrite almost all of what I wrote in the existing Alál thread to bring it up to date, do y'all think it'd be more efficient / less messy to just start a new thread for it? I'm not certain if that'd be a forum faux pas (you'd think I'd pick up on these things after seven years here, but no), but it'd be nice to have a clean slate since I'll be starting the write-up from scratch.
I don't believe there'd be a problem with that. It's been done before without issue.
I think it’s more efficient and less confusing for others to start a new thread when languages have been overhauled, especially when said langs haven’t been posted on for a while.

I plan to start a new Híí thread if I ever start posting on it again.

As a rather keen Alál aficionado, I look forward to seeing the new stuff. [:D]

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 269
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 16 Nov 2019 13:36

Are rhotacized long monophthongs better transcribed as [Vːʴ] or [Vʴː]?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

dva_arla
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 30
Joined: 25 Oct 2019 21:03
Location: Realm of Ideas

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

Post by dva_arla » 16 Nov 2019 14:55

Is a gap in the voiceless and voiced plosives/affricates natural/realistic in a language with the 3-way distinction? My naturalistic conlang has:

/p ph b/
/t th d/
/k kh g/
/ts tsh dz/
/t̠ʃ t̠ʃh d̠ʒ/
/ʈʂh/

i.e. no /ʈʂ/ or /ɖʐ/.

I also plan to neutralise the distinctions between voiceless and aspirated plosives (but not affricates) word-medially i.e. word medially only the following sounds are permitted :

/p b/
/t d/
/k g/
/ts tsh dz/
/t̠ʃ t̠ʃh d̠ʒ/
/ʈʂh/

Plausible?

If possible, do give real-language examples (past or present) to support your stand.

N.B. the letter h I use to mark aspiration is unsuperscripted, because I am currently on a phone, and superscripting them would be quite tedious.

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 313
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 16 Nov 2019 15:13

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
16 Nov 2019 13:36
Are rhotacized long monophthongs better transcribed as [Vːʴ] or [Vʴː]?
I'd choose [Vʴː]. Quality modifiers before quantity modifiers.
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

User avatar
Ser
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 115
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

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

Post by Ser » 18 Nov 2019 01:26

Zekoslav wrote:
16 Nov 2019 15:13
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
16 Nov 2019 13:36
Are rhotacized long monophthongs better transcribed as [Vːʴ] or [Vʴː]?
I'd choose [Vʴː]. Quality modifiers before quantity modifiers.
It's always pretty awkward though. This works well for vowels, but for affricate consonants it gets trickier, e.g. Italian razzo 'rocket' and ragazzo 'boy' [ˈradzːo raˈgatsːo] don't look like what they are, even with that joiner on top, [ˈrat͡sːo raˈgad͡zːo]... So [ˈradːzo raˈgatːso] is better, or also the usual convention, [ˈraddzo raˈgattso].

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 313
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 18 Nov 2019 14:28

Chechen or some related Caucasian language which has phonemic long consonants in both onsets and codas, specifically has long /t͡sː/ with a long [s ] rather than a long [t]. Croatian /tt͡s/ and /dt͡s/ are realised as [t͡s] with a long [t], while /ts/ and /ds/ are realised as [t͡s] with a long [s ], and in careful speech they both contrast with /t͡s/ [t͡s] with both parts short. So marking length probably has to be adjusted based on what suits the language best. In languages where geminates are heterosyllabic, i.e. [at.ta], I prefer to just write both consonants and put the stress mark between them if needed.
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

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5780
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 19 Nov 2019 23:18

My conlang's stress rules are that stress always falls on the last heaviest syllable. Pretonic short vowels syncopate except in CVCVC syllables.
So, this creates syllables (a and ā here represent short and long vowels, respectively) like CaC.Ca(C) and CCā.Ca(C) and Cā.Cā.Ca(C) but what natural processes (aside from simple vowel coalescence) can I do so that CāC.Ca(C) and CCa.Ca(C) Cā.Ca.Ca(C) are also valid syllable shapes.

Additional information:
  • It has a triconsonantal root system, not sure if that makes a huge difference for this question
  • Inventory:
    /a e i u /<a e i u>
    /aː eː iː uː/<ā ē ī ū>
    /aj əj aw əw/<ay ey aw ew>
    /aːj əːj aːw əːw/<āy ēy āw ēw>

    /m n ŋ/
    /p pʼ b t tʼ d k kʼ g ʔ/
    /s sʼ z ɬ ɬʼ ɮ x xʼ ɣ h/
    /r j w/
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 313
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 20 Nov 2019 09:34

I'd love to help, but I can't accurately picture your conlang's syllable structure. Is it underlyingly CVC or CV with a coda consonant allowed word-finally? Where does stress fall if there are no long vowels in the word?

In an underlyingly CVC structure I see no reason why CāC.Ca(C) and Cā.Ca.Ca(C) wouldn't be there from the get go, especially if only pretonic, but not posttonic vowels are syncopate (syncope of posttonic vowels would turn Cā.Ca.Ca(C) into CāC.Ca(C) so it's good it's not there). CCa.Ca(C) is trickier to derive from an underlying CVC structure with the stress rules you've given and assuming in words without long syllables the initial syllable would be stressed. Maybe if it used to be CCā.Ca(C) and then the vowel was shortened for whatever reason.
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

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5780
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 20 Nov 2019 16:49

Zekoslav wrote:
20 Nov 2019 09:34
I'd love to help, but I can't accurately picture your conlang's syllable structure. Is it underlyingly CVC or CV with a coda consonant allowed word-finally? Where does stress fall if there are no long vowels in the word?
The syllable is CV(:)(C) and classed into light (CV), heavy (CVC or CV:) and superheavy (CV:C) but the language does not like clusters of more than two consonants but also doesn't like word-final clusters or CCV(:)C monosyllables. If the word consists entirely of light open syllables, the stress is either always on the last vowel (the last heaviest vowel) or always on the second last vowel. I rather like the idea of having both stress patterns.

If stress is always on the last vowel than I can explain CV́C.CV(C) by way of CV.CV.CV́ > CVC.CV́ with a stress shift, but if stress is penultimate then I can explain CCV́.CV by way of CV.CV́.CV > C.CV́.CV. Neither stress patterns can, however, explain CV́:C.CV.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1743
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 20 Nov 2019 22:30

Ahzoh wrote:
20 Nov 2019 16:49
Zekoslav wrote:
20 Nov 2019 09:34
I'd love to help, but I can't accurately picture your conlang's syllable structure. Is it underlyingly CVC or CV with a coda consonant allowed word-finally? Where does stress fall if there are no long vowels in the word?
The syllable is CV(:)(C) and classed into light (CV), heavy (CVC or CV:) and superheavy (CV:C) but the language does not like clusters of more than two consonants but also doesn't like word-final clusters or CCV(:)C monosyllables. If the word consists entirely of light open syllables, the stress is either always on the last vowel (the last heaviest vowel) or always on the second last vowel. I rather like the idea of having both stress patterns.

If stress is always on the last vowel than I can explain CV́C.CV(C) by way of CV.CV.CV́ > CVC.CV́ with a stress shift, but if stress is penultimate then I can explain CCV́.CV by way of CV.CV́.CV > C.CV́.CV. Neither stress patterns can, however, explain CV́:C.CV.
I'm not sure what you mean. Given your rules, CV:C.CV shouldn't need any explaining? Superheavy syllable plus light syllable, cluster of only two consonants. What's the problem?

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » 20 Nov 2019 23:48

i think he wants a diachronic solution from a previous CV-only stage. in which case, i dont see one either.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 313
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 21 Nov 2019 09:25

There could be a situation, after syncope, that vowels are lengthened before some coda consonants, but not before others, resulting in CV.CV.CV́ > CVC.CV́ or CVːC.CV́ > CV́C.CV or CV́ːC.CV. The relevant consonants could then merge, making this distinction unpredictable.

If you want to have both penultimate and ultimate stress patterns for light roots while keeping predictable stress, you could make them depend on vowel quality or the presence of a coda consonant (possibly later lost, making this distinction, once again, unpredictable).

CV.CV́.CV > CCV́.CV
CV.CV.CV́C > CV́C.CV / CV́ːC.CV

Make this potentially lost coda consonant a suffix and voilà, ablaut!
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