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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 168
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » 05 Oct 2018 15:07

What case would a noun be in in an ergative language when in a title(not in a full sentence)?

I.E: The book of the world.

What case should I put book in?

User avatar
Zekoslav
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 78
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 05 Oct 2018 15:34

Considering that in ergative languages, absolutive is generally the unmarked case, I'd guess titles would be in the absolutive. Although, it might depend on how your conculture (if relevant) comes up with titles - I wish I knew more about that in other real-world cultures (I still think the unmarked case should be the default)!
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
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 168
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » 05 Oct 2018 15:46

Zekoslav wrote:
05 Oct 2018 15:34
Considering that in ergative languages, absolutive is generally the unmarked case, I'd guess titles would be in the absolutive. Although, it might depend on how your conculture (if relevant) comes up with titles - I wish I knew more about that in other real-world cultures (I still think the unmarked case should be the default)!
Thanks!

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1558
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 05 Oct 2018 16:41

The unmarked case is obviously most natural as a default; however, I'd begin by question your assumptions. What is a "title", and why do your people have them? For instance, book titles that just explain what the book is about may well use the dative or the like ("[on/about] the origin-DAT of species").

If the title functions as a sort of proferative deictic, or is mainly found in lists, there may be particular constructions associated with those procedures.

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2681
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 05 Oct 2018 16:59

There are also title formulas based on clauses. Chapter titles in older books occasionally take the form: "In which [such-and-such happens]"

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4500
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 05 Oct 2018 17:10

Salmoneus wrote:
05 Oct 2018 16:41
The unmarked case is obviously most natural as a default; however, I'd begin by question your assumptions. What is a "title", and why do your people have them? For instance, book titles that just explain what the book is about may well use the dative or the like ("[on/about] the origin-DAT of species").

If the title functions as a sort of proferative deictic, or is mainly found in lists, there may be particular constructions associated with those procedures.
Just wanted to add, that many older Geman titles (in Latin obviously [:D] ) were genitive case constructions (kind of), because they started with de.
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
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 168
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » 05 Oct 2018 17:20

Creyeditor wrote:
05 Oct 2018 17:10
Salmoneus wrote:
05 Oct 2018 16:41
The unmarked case is obviously most natural as a default; however, I'd begin by question your assumptions. What is a "title", and why do your people have them? For instance, book titles that just explain what the book is about may well use the dative or the like ("[on/about] the origin-DAT of species").

If the title functions as a sort of proferative deictic, or is mainly found in lists, there may be particular constructions associated with those procedures.
Just wanted to add, that many older Geman titles (in Latin obviously [:D] ) were genitive case constructions (kind of), because they started with de.
That actually might work well, since I use postpositions for cases, so I can just put it after the whole name.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2480
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 05 Oct 2018 17:54

I'm making a Germanic lang.

It has sound changes
/s/ -> /ʃ/
/θ/ -> /s/

I'd like to preserve <s> as the letter for /ʃ/. How could /s/ be written? I don't like <þ>.

shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 11150
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 05 Oct 2018 17:59

<sz>.

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2681
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 05 Oct 2018 18:03

<ß>.

Ess-zed
Eszett
Same diff

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1558
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 05 Oct 2018 18:37

Depends where it's spoken! And what other letters are used, and how!

Options include s-cedilla, s-acute, s-dot or more fancifully s-tilde; or c, z, q or x; or ts, or ds, or th; or ss, sc, sz, sth, ths, zs or cs; or c-acute, c-dot, c-cedilla; or d, or d-bar or eth or sd, or....

Porphyrogenitos
sinic
sinic
Posts: 227
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 07:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

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

Post by Porphyrogenitos » 06 Oct 2018 01:51

Also, it depends on when the sound change happened - before or after the orthography was established. If the orthography was established before the sound change, it would likely just keep using the same symbols as before, but with the shifted sound values. So we might see:

þ = [θ]
s = [s]

s θ > ʃ s

þ = [s]
s = [ʃ]

Considering a broad European context, and without knowing any other information about the language or orthography, I'd say that <z> and <ç> are the most likely representations for a [θ] that later became [s]

Odkidstr
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 133
Joined: 27 May 2015 19:26

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

Post by Odkidstr » 06 Oct 2018 04:07

Hopefully this makes sense (and sorry if my terminology is off):

I'm wondering what languages do when quoting a person in writing or relaying what someone has said. For instance, in English you can say: "Eat this," said the man vs "Eat this," the man said vs The man said "eat this." If I'm understanding correctly, the quote itself as a clause would be the object of the verb "to say." In English, it appears that we typically front the quote so that the first two examples are more common than the latter, and it seems that word order can vary quite a bit too. How do other languages handle this? Is it typical to front the quote for a verb such as "say" in languages, or does it normally occur in-situ?

Also another question, this time about plural marking. If a language has suffixing case, it is normal for the plural suffix to come before the case suffix, correct? Or is it also possible for the suffix to be case-plural marking? I am aware of fusion based markings too, but that's not what I'm looking for. Would a postposition for plural marking seem odd if case was suffixed to the noun? Aside from vowel change, adpositions, and affixes, are there any unique or uncommon ways to mark plurality?

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 210
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » 06 Oct 2018 04:59

It would be odd for a plural marker to appear after a case marker, yes. Maybe the morpheme that becomes the plural marker can itself have different forms for different cases, though you'd said you didn't want fusion and that setup would likely cause fusion.
Image

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2480
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 06 Oct 2018 21:45

Porphyrogenitos wrote:
06 Oct 2018 01:51
Also, it depends on when the sound change happened - before or after the orthography was established. If the orthography was established before the sound change, it would likely just keep using the same symbols as before, but with the shifted sound values. So we might see:

þ = [θ]
s =

s θ > ʃ s

þ =
s = [ʃ]

Considering a broad European context, and without knowing any other information about the language or orthography, I'd say that <z> and <ç> are the most likely representations for a [θ] that later became


I always forget there is <ç> for <c> before back vowels.
But if /s/ doesn't derive from /k/ they are a bit odd. Of course the orthography can just mirror those of other languages.

User avatar
Zekoslav
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 78
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 07 Oct 2018 09:10

Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.
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
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2480
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 07 Oct 2018 09:46

Zekoslav wrote:
07 Oct 2018 09:10
Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.
Was German /ts/ <z> really a sibilant in some state of the language? Or do I misunderstood you.

holbuzvala
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 166
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 07 Oct 2018 12:47

Why is it that in French, most adjectives follow nouns, but (what I would describe as) 'generic' adjectives preceed the nouns they describe?

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 210
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » 07 Oct 2018 13:53

Omzinesý wrote:
07 Oct 2018 09:46
Zekoslav wrote:
07 Oct 2018 09:10
Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.
Was German /ts/ <z> really a sibilant in some state of the language? Or do I misunderstood you.
I think the spelling has changed. Plain <z> was a fricative, <zz> was an affricate, and much of what is <tz> today was <zz> then.apparently the spelling was just loose .... They used z for both fricatives and affricates, both single and double.
Image

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2480
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 07 Oct 2018 14:04

Pabappa wrote:
07 Oct 2018 13:53
Omzinesý wrote:
07 Oct 2018 09:46
Zekoslav wrote:
07 Oct 2018 09:10
Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.
Was German /ts/ <z> really a sibilant in some state of the language? Or do I misunderstood you.
I think the spelling has changed. Plain <z> was a fricative, <zz> was an affricate, and much of what is <tz> today was <zz> then.apparently the spelling was just loose .... They used z for both fricatives and affricates, both single and double.
OK, now I see. You mean inter-vocally.
Swedish katt German Katze
Swedish fatta German fassen
Swedish heta German heißen

Post Reply