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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Random8k
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Aug 2017 05:05
Location: Probably at the computer

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

Post by Random8k » 05 Jan 2019 02:48

Frislander wrote:
04 Jan 2019 13:58
OK, couple of things.

Firstly overall I think this is fine. The absence of velars is perhaps a little weird, but I assume *k became the velar fricative, in which case this is fine because you have an explanation for the gap. I also don't mind the high-mid instead of high vowels, though I wouldn't be surprised if speakers sometimes pronounced them as true high /i ɯ u/ or similar, which would be what tends to happen.

The one thing which sticks out to me as odd is the labiodental nasal. Firstly contrastive labiodentals other than the fricatives are practically unheard of, and from an auditory perspective you could justify this being there if you otherwise had a large inventory with loads of labiodental sounds, but you don't, you just have this and the approximant, though I would expect the bilabial fricative to shift to labiodental pretty quickly. I'd say with the right phonotactics you could have /ɱ/ as a realisation of /mʋ/, but in order for it to be its own thing and fit naturally I'd say redesign the entire thing to give it a full labiodental series.
Thanks for the feedback. By redesign, I could perhaps replace /ɸ/ with /f/ and add /v/, to fill out the labiodental series as you recommended yeah? Then /ʋ/ could be used in other cases, perhaps.
Native: :eng:
Interest: :jpn: :deu:

:con: Qianshogō, Xjanae

Random8k
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Aug 2017 05:05
Location: Probably at the computer

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

Post by Random8k » 05 Jan 2019 03:02

Clio wrote:
05 Jan 2019 02:12
Are there historical reasons for them? For instance, Spanish spells /k/ as <c> and <qu> because Latin /kʷ/ <QU> lost its labialization, and English spells /i/ as <ee> (among other things) because Middle English /e:/ <ee> was raised.

At the moment, there's no historical reasoning. I was just thinking about how I'd assign sounds, and I'd just work out a rule for how exactly it'd sound depending on where it is. As for /ɲ/, same deal really, I just assigned it to <na>, or maybe <nha>.
Native: :eng:
Interest: :jpn: :deu:

:con: Qianshogō, Xjanae

Clio
sinic
sinic
Posts: 200
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 23:45

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

Post by Clio » 05 Jan 2019 03:10

Random8k wrote:
05 Jan 2019 03:02
At the moment, there's no historical reasoning. I was just thinking about how I'd assign sounds, and I'd just work out a rule for how exactly it'd sound depending on where it is. As for /ɲ/, same deal really, I just assigned it to <na>, or maybe <nha>.
So, from what I understand of what you wrote here, you started with the alphabet and then assigned sounds to letters and sequences of letters? If your aim is naturalism, it's probably a better idea to go the other way around: every natural language is spoken before it is written, and no natural language has a sound system based on the Latin alphabet.
Niûro nCora
Getic: longum Getico murmur in ore fuit

Random8k
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Aug 2017 05:05
Location: Probably at the computer

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

Post by Random8k » 05 Jan 2019 03:40

Clio wrote:
05 Jan 2019 03:10
So, from what I understand of what you wrote here, you started with the alphabet and then assigned sounds to letters and sequences of letters? If your aim is naturalism, it's probably a better idea to go the other way around: every natural language is spoken before it is written, and no natural language has a sound system based on the Latin alphabet.
I see, my bad. So it'd be more proper to come up with just how the sounds work/go together first, then assign them to written letters, yes?
Native: :eng:
Interest: :jpn: :deu:

:con: Qianshogō, Xjanae

Clio
sinic
sinic
Posts: 200
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 23:45

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

Post by Clio » 05 Jan 2019 04:03

Random8k wrote:
05 Jan 2019 03:40
I see, my bad. So it'd be more proper to come up with just how the sounds work/go together first, then assign them to written letters, yes?
No need to apologize! If naturalism is your goal, then the advice is generally given to reproduce to some extent the way in which natural languages develop.

The reason Frislander and I both asked about earlier stages in the history of the language is that many conlangers find it useful to create a language and then "evolve" it into another. Then one winds up with naturalistic irregularities like those encountered in English or French. (Obviously, that's a lot of work, so some of us just sketch certain aspects of the older language--the basics of a sound system, or a few ancient pluralization patterns to preserve in a select set of words.)

Another major (and easier) way that you can mimic the natural order of a language's development is to start with sounds rather than writing. As I said above, every language is spoken before it's written. This is true both in that every native speaker learns to speak before learning to write and in that writing is a technology invented to represent a community's spoken language.

By starting with sounds you'll also find yourself not restrained by the idiosyncracies of the Latin alphabet. Our alphabet, for instance, has three letters for the /k/ sound: <c>, <k>, and <q>. Most languages outside of Western Europe don't do that, but a disproportionate amount of early conlangers reproduce exactly English's system. Just think: starting from the English alphabet, who would think to invent a phonology like Zulu's? My advice is to learn about the phonological systems of a few languages you like (no need to learn alphabets--just look on Wikipedia pages like the one I linked; fortunately you already know the IPA), and see how they function.
Niûro nCora
Getic: longum Getico murmur in ore fuit

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3434
Joined: 14 May 2016 17:47
Location: The North

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

Post by Frislander » 05 Jan 2019 13:41

Random8k wrote:
05 Jan 2019 02:48
Frislander wrote:
04 Jan 2019 13:58
OK, couple of things.

Firstly overall I think this is fine. The absence of velars is perhaps a little weird, but I assume *k became the velar fricative, in which case this is fine because you have an explanation for the gap. I also don't mind the high-mid instead of high vowels, though I wouldn't be surprised if speakers sometimes pronounced them as true high /i ɯ u/ or similar, which would be what tends to happen.

The one thing which sticks out to me as odd is the labiodental nasal. Firstly contrastive labiodentals other than the fricatives are practically unheard of, and from an auditory perspective you could justify this being there if you otherwise had a large inventory with loads of labiodental sounds, but you don't, you just have this and the approximant, though I would expect the bilabial fricative to shift to labiodental pretty quickly. I'd say with the right phonotactics you could have /ɱ/ as a realisation of /mʋ/, but in order for it to be its own thing and fit naturally I'd say redesign the entire thing to give it a full labiodental series.
Thanks for the feedback. By redesign, I could perhaps replace /ɸ/ with /f/ and add /v/, to fill out the labiodental series as you recommended yeah? Then /ʋ/ could be used in other cases, perhaps.
You don't even have to add /v/ seeing as you have /ʋ/ but yeah I'd recommend that.

Cẅènyon
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Dec 2018 16:01

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

Post by Cẅènyon » 05 Jan 2019 21:20

Hello. Since I have been learning Quenya, much of my conlanging skills were lost, and just because of the matter that Quenya is a beautiful conlang, but there are many words of common use that Tolkien never created or that were never published and many, many other roots that I would like to replace with my own words. I would change even grammar (at least to some extent) because I am recently getting focused into ergative-absolutive languages and I think that my version of Quenya would fit quite well into an ergative-absolutive system. The main things I would like to keep with the same spelling and meaning are some morphological declensions, like Locative -sse, Ablative -llo or Allative -nna.
And here is the problem: Quenya is a really famous conlang (we all know that). Thousands of words have been published on the web, its grammar is truly clear and anyone can access it in webpages like Ardalambion, Lambenor Linguistic Institute or even Wikibooks. And anyone studying it could notice if my declensions for Locative, Ablative, Allative and others are spelled the same as in Quenya. I need help, because I have passed from creating a conlang almost every three weeks to ask myself if I can still create conlangs and think that I will never be as smart (to me) as that again. So, to include some declensions from Quenya in my conlangs will make them look non-naturalistic, poorly creative or even copied? In case the answer is yes, should I give up with conlanging before getting even more deppressed?
Thanks.

User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1808
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

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

Post by gestaltist » 05 Jan 2019 22:02

Cẅènyon wrote:
05 Jan 2019 21:20
snip
The most likely turn of events is that nobody will know or care that you've copied morphemes from Quenya. Conlanging is a very niche hobby. You'll notice even on this forum - where we are all enthusiasts of the activity - that most threads on actual conlangs get rather modest commentary. People are too busy creating their own conlangs to really dive into those of others, I suspect.

In other words: if conlanging makes you happy, and if you happen to like a few morphemes from Quenya, do it, nobody will mind. If you're looking for a reason to get depressed while conlanging, being sad over a lack of interest and feedback is more promising than expecting people to berate you for copying a morpheme.

wintiver
sinic
sinic
Posts: 245
Joined: 09 Oct 2012 02:37

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

Post by wintiver » 06 Jan 2019 02:30

Keenir wrote:
04 Jan 2019 08:22
It sounds plausible...not sure if its attested, but I'd be surprised if its not (and even if its not attested, that doesn't mean its implausible)

so yours would be...lets say "yorik" means "singing"...

C1: yorika, yorikaha a singer(s) singing.
C7: elyorik, umyorik an instrument(s) being played.

Though part of me wonders if speakers would attempt to split the difference...

C1: ayorik, yorikaha (or yorika, ahayorik)
C7: elyorik, yorikum (or yorikel, umyorik)

I wish you success with your conlang.
I like that idea of shifting to singular prefixes and suffixes for plurality. That's neat. I appreciate the feedback Keenir.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2566
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 07 Jan 2019 01:40

Cẅènyon wrote:
05 Jan 2019 21:20
Hello. Since I have been learning Quenya, much of my conlanging skills were lost, and just because of the matter that Quenya is a beautiful conlang, but there are many words of common use that Tolkien never created or that were never published and many, many other roots that I would like to replace with my own words. I would change even grammar (at least to some extent) because I am recently getting focused into ergative-absolutive languages and I think that my version of Quenya would fit quite well into an ergative-absolutive system. The main things I would like to keep with the same spelling and meaning are some morphological declensions, like Locative -sse, Ablative -llo or Allative -nna.
And here is the problem: Quenya is a really famous conlang (we all know that). Thousands of words have been published on the web, its grammar is truly clear and anyone can access it in webpages like Ardalambion, Lambenor Linguistic Institute or even Wikibooks. And anyone studying it could notice if my declensions for Locative, Ablative, Allative and others are spelled the same as in Quenya. I need help, because I have passed from creating a conlang almost every three weeks to ask myself if I can still create conlangs and think that I will never be as smart (to me) as that again. So, to include some declensions from Quenya in my conlangs will make them look non-naturalistic, poorly creative or even copied? In case the answer is yes, should I give up with conlanging before getting even more deppressed?
Thanks.
Most conlangs copy from natlangs. Some just do it more elegantly. Quenya itself is very Finnish-y. Why not from a generally known conlang that no living person can claim to posses.

You could even try explicitely deriving a daughter of Quenya.

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 186
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by WeepingElf » 07 Jan 2019 16:24

I once tried to make an active-stative daughter of Sindarin. It was a disaster.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

Cẅènyon
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Dec 2018 16:01

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

Post by Cẅènyon » 10 Jan 2019 19:59

Thank you all for the comments above.
Finally I could get rid of all that Quenya case suffixes, so now I am conlanging again. I did not hope creating any other conlangs, and just because I could not agree with the orthography I was trying to design! Thank to God the situation has become better.
But now there is another problem: which criteria should I follow to name my conlang? I do not consider giving it a name based on the nation where it could be spoken. I am not as awesome as Tolkien because I have never created a fictitious world (I am aware that Worldbuilding is a higher step than Conlanging), so I cannot name my conlang with the name of a nation that does not exist (at least until some years, I think).
So what should I think on while naming a conlang?
Thanks.

Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2575
Joined: 22 May 2012 02:05

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

Post by Keenir » 10 Jan 2019 22:16

Cẅènyon wrote:
10 Jan 2019 19:59
But now there is another problem: which criteria should I follow to name my conlang? I do not consider giving it a name based on the nation where it could be spoken. I am not as awesome as Tolkien because I have never created a fictitious world (I am aware that Worldbuilding is a higher step than Conlanging), so I cannot name my conlang with the name of a nation that does not exist (at least until some years, I think).
why not? give it a name, and that way, whether you eventually create that nation or not, now you have something to call it - worst comes to worst, its a placeholder.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2575
Joined: 22 May 2012 02:05

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

Post by Keenir » 10 Jan 2019 22:28

update...however small...
shimobaatar wrote:
30 Dec 2018 15:14
Keenir wrote:
30 Dec 2018 06:16
I'd be content with a copper vein. Any texts I find, I will inform you of.
Well said. I'll do the same, of course.
I got ahold of my library's copy of The Story of Spanish by Jean-Benoit {the I with a ^ over it} Nadeau and Julie Barlow...

It says the modern name Gonzalo has the root gunthis = fight.
...and that Fernando comes from frithu = peace.....and ninth = audacity.

Early Visigothic loans include
* spy = espia (with a / over the I)
* clothing = ropa
* site = sitio

Late Visigothic loans include
* to adorn = ataviar
* to pour wine = escanciar
* goose = ganso (I assume this is the bird, not the action)
* lid = tapa

Visigothic names of early Spain: Reccared, Wamba, Recceswinth, Chindasuinth {a connection between -swi- and -swui-?}, Seisebut, Leovigild, Roderic, Athanagild.

Visigothic provided a suffix for Spanish as well: -engo <-- from -ing (belonging to)i]
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

holbuzvala
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 183
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 12 Jan 2019 20:09

A question on tones influencing other tones.

Firstly, can tones affect each other 'leftwards' and 'rightwards'?

e.g. (h=high tone syllable; m=mid tone syllable; l=low tone syllable; hyphens show which syllables are in a word)

1. h-h + l -> h-h-m (rightwards influence)
2. h-h + l -> h-m-l (leftwards influence)


Secondly, what do you think of tones from 'substantive' words or roots being 'dominant' and affecting tones of affixes/particles, regardless of whether the latter come before or after the roots?

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4590
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 12 Jan 2019 21:08

Both sound good. You could check Larry Hyman's website for examples from natlangs. He has worked a lot on directionality in tonal processes.
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
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7778
Joined: 13 May 2012 01:57

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

Post by Lambuzhao » 12 Jan 2019 21:53

Keenir wrote:
30 Dec 2018 06:16
shimobaatar wrote:
30 Dec 2018 04:28
Even if my understanding is completely off, the end result is that we don't really have many surviving records of the language of the Visigoths, if we have any at all.
While quite true, your statement reminded me of a language book (I think it was just Spanish(subtitle escapes me), a history of the language, whose first (second? prologue?) chapter talked about the Carthaginian linguistic past - and how "Hispania" comes from the word for conies and hyraxes. I'll see if I can find that as well.
{EDIT: https://www.amazon.com/Story-Spanish-Je ... h+language }

:D Visigothic...RL's naming language. :D
I'd certainly like for this information to be out there somewhere, though, so I wish you the best of luck. Maybe you'll stumble across a goldmine, so to speak, somewhere I've never thought to look.
I'd be content with a copper vein. Any texts I find, I will inform you of.
This may be a copper vein worth spelunking:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 9.11435671
:wat:

User avatar
LinguoFranco
sinic
sinic
Posts: 443
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 16:49

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

Post by LinguoFranco » 15 Jan 2019 17:26

Are there any rules, tendencies or universals concerning coda consonants? Like what is most common, for example.

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3434
Joined: 14 May 2016 17:47
Location: The North

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

Post by Frislander » 15 Jan 2019 17:38

LinguoFranco wrote:
15 Jan 2019 17:26
Are there any rules, tendencies or universals concerning coda consonants? Like what is most common, for example.
Not really. Plenty of languages only allow sonorants, plenty allow only obstruents, some just have a single nasal /n/, some allow only the glottal stop, some allow only /k s/, many allow any consonant, there's so much variation and no pattern. I think in raw numbers the only pattern with anything like a majority is having no coda consonants at all.

Also do remember that often word-final consonants and word-internal consonant clusters are very differently structured; plenty of languages allow word-internal clusters but no word-final codas, while others allow word-final codas but no internal clusters. Imho variation like this makes it difficult to speak of "coda consonants" as a cogent category.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3270
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 15 Jan 2019 17:52

I think the only other thing that might be universal is that consonants that can be codas make up a subset of all consonants, and are typically smaller in number than consonants that can be onsets. I can't remember coming across a language that had a set of codas larger than its set of onsets.
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.

Post Reply