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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 265
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 05 Dec 2019 18:20

Is a language more likely to have a parent root meaning something like "related to the heavens" and a derivative root, specifically, for stars or unrelated roots for the heavens and stars?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1882
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

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

Post by loglorn » 05 Dec 2019 18:28

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
05 Dec 2019 18:20
Is a language more likely to have a parent root meaning something like "related to the heavens" and a derivative root, specifically, for stars or unrelated roots for the heavens and stars?
Sounds cultural/cosmological but also I'd say separate heaven and star roots are more likely
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2838
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 05 Dec 2019 18:38

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
05 Dec 2019 18:20
Is a language more likely to have a parent root meaning something like "related to the heavens" and a derivative root, specifically, for stars or unrelated roots for the heavens and stars?
I have no idea, but this feels like the kind of thing you can safely decide for yourself. No one will bat an eyelash.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 265
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 05 Dec 2019 20:19

Thanks guys.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4609
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes » 06 Dec 2019 02:51

Dormouse559 wrote:
05 Dec 2019 18:38
I have no idea, but this feels like the kind of thing you can safely decide for yourself. No one will bat an eyelash.
Huh. I’ve never heard that variant of the expression “bat an eyelid”. A quick Google suggests it’s common.

User avatar
LinguistCat
sinic
sinic
Posts: 207
Joined: 06 May 2017 07:48

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

Post by LinguistCat » 06 Dec 2019 04:56

DesEsseintes wrote:
06 Dec 2019 02:51
Dormouse559 wrote:
05 Dec 2019 18:38
I have no idea, but this feels like the kind of thing you can safely decide for yourself. No one will bat an eyelash.
Huh. I’ve never heard that variant of the expression “bat an eyelid”. A quick Google suggests it’s common.
And I've mostly heard "bat an eye".

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 284
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » 06 Dec 2019 04:59

I think batting your eyelashes is a bit different .... thats a sign of flirting, ... at work I once heard a woman say to another woman "you know the customer cant see you batting your eyelashes over the phone, right?"
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

User avatar
spanick
roman
roman
Posts: 1094
Joined: 11 May 2017 01:47
Location: California

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

Post by spanick » 06 Dec 2019 05:02

Yeah, I’ve only ever heard “bat and eyelash” as a reference to flirting. The expression I’m familiar with is “bay an eye.”

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2838
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 06 Dec 2019 05:20

Apparently, everyone is batting an eyelid at my eyelash. [:P] For me, there's a clear difference between "bat one's eyelashes" and "not bat an eyelash". The former is a pretty straightforward phrase and can be affirmative or negative; the latter is a full-on idiom and only negative (the affirmative doesn't make much anatomical sense). "Not bat an eye(lid)" is perfectly acceptable for me, too.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 265
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 06 Dec 2019 10:24

The language one root for soldier, which I'm planning to have become the word with a single transfix. While I'm confident that the classifications (enlisted, etc.) are derived from the root, is it plausible or speakers to derive the ranks, such as Yeoman, from the root as well?

Additionally, I'm reconstructing Proto-Common with the help of several Wikipedia articles. Are the changes below plausible?

1. [*h → l]
2. {*pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ → ħ}
3. [*J → ʝ], but {*pJ, *tJ, *kJ, *ɾJ → pʰ, tʰ, kʰ, r}, which become interchangeable with [p, t, k, ɾ] due to rarity (no complete agreement on [*J], with it as [j] or [ʝ]; [ʝ] being more likely)
4. [*C → t͡ʃ~d͡ʒ] ([*C] was [ç] or [j̊], no complete agreement)
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

Khemehekis
runic
runic
Posts: 2455
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

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

Post by Khemehekis » 08 Dec 2019 02:52

A number system question: Can someone please go to my Kankonian grammar at http://khemehekis.angelfire.com/basic.htm and read over my number system list (search for "quintillion" on the page to find it) to make sure I didn't goof?
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 60,137 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2705
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 08 Dec 2019 17:05

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
06 Dec 2019 10:24
The language one root for soldier, which I'm planning to have become the word with a single transfix. While I'm confident that the classifications (enlisted, etc.) are derived from the root, is it plausible or speakers to derive the ranks, such as Yeoman, from the root as well?

Additionally, I'm reconstructing Proto-Common with the help of several Wikipedia articles. Are the changes below plausible?

1. [*h → l]
2. {*pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ → ħ}
3. [*J → ʝ], but {*pJ, *tJ, *kJ, *ɾJ → pʰ, tʰ, kʰ, r}, which become interchangeable with [p, t, k, ɾ] due to rarity (no complete agreement on [*J], with it as [j] or [ʝ]; [ʝ] being more likely)
4. [*C → t͡ʃ~d͡ʒ] ([*C] was [ç] or [j̊], no complete agreement)
Phonemes are written /phoneme/, pronunciations [pronunciation].
It's impossible to say if an unanalysable phoneme *C can change to something. You probably see why.
[h] rarely fortifies to anything. It's kind of the last stage of the phoneme before disappearing. In some voiceless environment that could happen but I don't see it probable in all environments.
pj -> pç -> pʰ actually does feel theoretically ok, though I don't know where it would have happened.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 265
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 08 Dec 2019 19:29

Omzinesý wrote:
08 Dec 2019 17:05
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
06 Dec 2019 10:24
The language one root for soldier, which I'm planning to have become the word with a single transfix. While I'm confident that the classifications (enlisted, etc.) are derived from the root, is it plausible or speakers to derive the ranks, such as Yeoman, from the root as well?

Additionally, I'm reconstructing Proto-Common with the help of several Wikipedia articles. Are the changes below plausible?

1. [*h → l]
2. {*pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ → ħ}
3. [*J → ʝ], but {*pJ, *tJ, *kJ, *ɾJ → pʰ, tʰ, kʰ, r}, which become interchangeable with [p, t, k, ɾ] due to rarity (no complete agreement on [*J], with it as [j] or [ʝ]; [ʝ] being more likely)
4. [*C → t͡ʃ~d͡ʒ] ([*C] was [ç] or [j̊], no complete agreement)
Phonemes are written /phoneme/, pronunciations [pronunciation].
It's impossible to say if an unanalysable phoneme *C can change to something. You probably see why.
[h] rarely fortifies to anything. It's kind of the last stage of the phoneme before disappearing. In some voiceless environment that could happen but I don't see it probable in all environments.
pj -> pç -> pʰ actually does feel theoretically ok, though I don't know where it would have happened.
I, actually, asked this on the new ZBB as well (final questioned changes below).

1. [*j̊ → l]
>[*j → l] happens from Proto-Oto-Manguean to Tlapanec as well as Proto-Malayo-Polynesian to Proto-Malayo-Javanic; a variant, [*j → lʲ], happens from Proto-Slavonic to Polish; and sporadic [*j → ɭ] is from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian to Proto-Chamic. I just kept [h] voicelessness.
2. {*pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ → ħ}
3. [*J → ʝ], but {*pJ, *tJ, *kJ, *ɾJ → pʰ, tʰ, kʰ, r}, which become interchangeable with [p, t, k, ɾ] due to rarity (no complete agreement on [*J], with it as [j] or [ʝ]; [ʝ] being more likely)
4. [*ʍ → t͡ʃ~d͡ʒ]
>Truly, IPA [*xʷ → t͡ʃ(ʷ)~d͡ʒ(ʷ)], with the results having extremely weak or no labialization because the labialization's only occurrence fronted the velar but transcribed [*ʍ] as [*x] is never reconstructed.
>>Simplifying to IPA [*xʷ → t͡ʃ(ʷ)] or local [*ʍ → t͡ʃ(ʷ)], ultimately ending at [ɹ̠̊˔] through [t̠ɹ̠̊˔]
>>Somewhat related was [*py, *pJo, *pJɔ, *pJu, *pJʊ → fy~f͆y, fo~f͆o, fɔ~f͆ɔ, fu~f͆u, fʊ~f͆ʊ]
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on 08 Dec 2019 22:05, edited 2 times in total.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3108
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 08 Dec 2019 19:49

Would it be unautralistic to have a set of numbers for mass nouns? Let's say we had them in English, and the suffix was (i)l. So Fouril waters could mean "four cups of water" "four pits of water" etc. and what the number was referring to is based on context/discourse clues.
Also, what mood corresponds to "should"?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3328
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 08 Dec 2019 21:49

Shemtov wrote:
08 Dec 2019 19:49
Would it be unautralistic to have a set of numbers for mass nouns? Let's say we had them in English, and the suffix was (i)l. So Fouril waters could mean "four cups of water" "four pits of water" etc. and what the number was referring to is based on context/discourse clues.
Also, what mood corresponds to "should"?
I think Japanese does this, but its grouping of nouns as mass nouns is pretty pervasive. Apparently, however, there's two ways to describe how many of some nouns there are. On the one hand, there's the use of Sino-Japanese numbers and counter words, and on the other hand these can be switched out for a bare native Japanese word (although seemingly only up to ten).

I wouldn't find it odd to see a system where something like this appeared in a language where mass nouns were a lot less common than in Japanese.

The counter words could, presumably, gradually fall out in some situations, and you'd end up with a system where (some?) mass nouns ended up using a distinct set of numbers with an implied measure. So you might have "three.MASS water" meaning "three cups of water" vs. "three.MASS pail water" for "three pails of water".
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