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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
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 » 24 May 2019 00:58

Reyzadren wrote:
23 May 2019 15:45
My own favourite conlang for myself has all the linguistic features that I want, except its logical restrictions ofc. It's not perfect or ideal, but I don't expect it to be. Still, I can use it proficiently and appropriately whereby I can't find such satisfaction any natlang or other conlang.

However, it might not be considered a personal language by some conlangers' definitions because it's a fictional language, ie must be based on rl instead of a conworld.
All of this applies to me too, with Poswa. It's got every feature I want, except those that would conflict with other features. But it took me quite a long time .... I started Pabappa back in 2004, and Poswa in 2007. Poswa only exists because Pabappa does, so it's been either 12 or 15 years that I've been at it.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 955
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 25 May 2019 03:37

I am currently trying to debate the phonemic status of /j/ in my language. Historically, this phoneme became /d/ intervocally and was lost after a consonant, leaving it only in initial position. Would it be phonemic if it still made minimal pairs?
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucus.

GoshDiggityDangit
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 149
Joined: 18 Dec 2018 21:27
Location: Misawa AFB, Aomori, Japan

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

Post by GoshDiggityDangit » 25 May 2019 03:59

Ælfwine wrote:
25 May 2019 03:37
I am currently trying to debate the phonemic status of /j/ in my language. Historically, this phoneme became /d/ intervocally and was lost after a consonant, leaving it only in initial position. Would it be phonemic if it still made minimal pairs?
I’m pretty sure it would.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1726
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 25 May 2019 13:43

Ælfwine wrote:
25 May 2019 03:37
I am currently trying to debate the phonemic status of /j/ in my language. Historically, this phoneme became /d/ intervocally and was lost after a consonant, leaving it only in initial position. Would it be phonemic if it still made minimal pairs?
Of course - being able to make minimal pairs is what is meant by 'phonemic'. It's unusual to have phonemes that are so restricted in distribution (and this might encourage loss or merger as a result), but not that unusual. Latin /f/, for example, only occurs word-initially (well, root-initially, it remains when prepositional prefixes are added (eg fero > profero)) (and OK, there are a couple of loanwords with medial /f/, like 'rufus') (but if you take out the loanwords and the prefixes, it's possible that OLD Latin (or pre-Latin or whatever) may have had /f/ only word-initially).

At the other end of the word, since /N/ doesn't contrast with /n/ before /g/ in English, you could argue that English only has /N/ word-finally. Well, root-finally, since it remains before the -er suffix (sing > singer). And /h/ is very close to only being root-initial, if you take out loanwords... and actually, English isn't that far from only having /j/ initially. In some dialects pretty much all post-consonantal yod is either coalesced or dropped, and in native words intervocalic /j/ (probably?) only occurs across original morpheme boundaries (though some morphemes may be cranberries - eg 'loyal' and 'royal' have cranberries before the -al suffix) and often can be better analysed as part of a dipthong anyway. [so, "loyal" is /lOI.@l/, not /lQj@l/ - so, AIUI, even Americans maintain rounding, which they wouldn't do if it were the second].


These examples should not only reassure you that it's possible to have a restricted phoneme like your /j/, but may also give an idea of what might realisically happen with it: the restricted distribution is likely over time to be de-restricted through the creation of new words after the era in which the responsible sound changes were active, both through prefixation and through borrowing.

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 955
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 25 May 2019 17:34

Thanks a lot, Salm. That was very informative. I decided to add a rule where hiatuses are broken up with /j/, restoring its phonemicity to a larger extent (although contrary to English, it is still syllable initial, especially as diphthongs do not exist in this language.) Its also found in a few clitic object pronouns such as -ije.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucus.

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 308
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 25 May 2019 18:39

In my IE. language, I've come up with an interesting morphosyntactic development that I don't really know how to justify semantically and pragmatically.

Basically, the IE. mediopassive voice is only preserved in the third person singular as a peculiar impersonal voice (quite like the one which exists in Old Irish and, I have to admit, my native language... [:$]). It's like the passive voice in that it allows the agent/subject to be omitted, but unlike the passive voice it doesn't promote the patient from object to subject.

Basically, at one point "the dinner-Nom. is being eaten" was replaced by "it is being eaten the dinner-Acc.".

Then at one point, the agent/subject is reintroduced, together with innovated agreement prefixes and suffixes. This is nifty from a purely morphological point of view, but I'm not sure what this re-personalized impersonal voice would be used for? Intuitively, it makes the subject seem not as involved with the action, but otherwise it looks like a roundabout (even perverted) way of saying the same thing as the normal active voice.

It could be somehow used for topic/comment purposes. I've read that there are languages in which the verb is inflected to mark where the focus is in the sentence, but I haven't been able to find concrete information, and until I do I won't be able to know if I can turn this eldritch monstrosity of a morphosyntactic category into something actually usable.

EDIT: I've come up with an idea. This construction is first used in reported speech and in questions for reasons of politeness, so as not to offend the addressee by asserting dubious facts too strongly. This then develops into a mirative/interrogative mood, and maybe even a quotative evidential.
Last edited by Zekoslav on 25 May 2019 19:32, edited 1 time in total.
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
masako
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2048
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 16:42
Location: 가매
Contact:

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

Post by masako » 25 May 2019 18:47

So. I've been mulling over a significant change to Kala grammar...Cases.

Currently, to mark the object of a verb, the particle "ke" is placed before it, and the verb is in the final position, i.e. SOV.

tahi ke mitam anyaye
boy O dog-PL see-PST
The boy saw the dogs.

I already have "-yo" which essentially functions as the genitive: ke mita nayo - O dog 1s.GEN - My dog.

If I were to use "-n" as the accusative I would instantly have an Arabic style case system.

mitan nayo tahi anyaye
dog-ACC 1s.GEN boy see-PST
The boy saw my dog(s). (The plural can be inferred based on context or foreknowledge)

I also have a couple of particles that could easily transition into affixes to bolster (or make more interesting) the system.

instrumental "-ma"
abessive "-mue"
dative "-kue"
benefactive "-nya"
locative "-mo"

This system would free-up word order and allow for more nuanced meaning...the main detractor is that most lemma straddle various parts of speech. Meaning I may very well need to make more words, or find another way to differentiate. Or, just leave it to context.

Any thoughts or advice would be much appreciated.

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7783
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

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

Post by Lambuzhao » 26 May 2019 00:40

elemtilas wrote:
22 May 2019 03:44
Lambuzhao wrote:
22 May 2019 02:05
[->] ad absurdum is from PFT.PASS.PTCP absurdus/a/um, not absurdis/absurde.

This reminds me of some examples in the Appendix Probi, where the reverse happens: 3rd Decl ADJs are (mis)treated as us/a/um ADJs.

E.G.
acre non acrum
tristis non tristus
:wat:
Surely this whole absurdum~absurdem thing is but an example of dialect delectability of the old Mater Dingua as she's now i-spoke?
Ita est. Certe absurdæm est. [xP]
Dagnabbit Valerie!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWTa9CE51sA

Or is it ¿Valleri?

Anyways I am certain that Appendix Probi is now out of date and Valerius Probus out of touch!
Gaddayum, Elem!!! [:x] [:x] [:x] [:x] What treachery
speakest thou?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0
Quo modo latine dicitur: “hot potato, orchestra stalls, Puck to make amends” ??
[->] ¡¡Hax Pax Deus Adimax!! [>_<]
Modern Latin speakers after all have access to Appendix Quersuini after all, do we not? You know, dicis tu tamatis dico 'go tomatus.
Yes, but the ginchiest latinoloquentes say «quicquid id est: appellemus lycopersicum».
[:3] :!:

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3512
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

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

Post by elemtilas » 26 May 2019 01:29

Lambuzhao wrote:
26 May 2019 00:40
elemtilas wrote:
22 May 2019 03:44

Anyways I am certain that Appendix Probi is now out of date and Valerius Probus out of touch!
Gaddayum, Elem!!! [:x] [:x] [:x] [:x] What treachery speakest thou?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0
Classic! Macbethmacbethmacbeth!!

Now, I'll have to watch the whole episode!
Quo modo latine dicitur: “hot potato, orchestra stalls, Puck to make amends” ??
[->] ¡¡Hax Pax Deus Adimax!! [>_<]
Surely: has patatas orkheometha caveabus an poc ar buile amendamus!
Modern Latin speakers after all have access to Appendix Quersuini after all, do we not? You know, dicis tu tamatis dico 'go tomatus.
Yes, but the ginchiest latinoloquentes say «quicquid id est: appellemus lycopersicum».
[:3] :!:
.snif. Well, old chap, if you absolutely insist on Greekifying everything!

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 263
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 27 May 2019 00:24

Currently, the language I'm fleshing out in here has dichotomies among voiceless front vowels (cf. [ɛ̥]) and voiced back vowels (cf. [ u]) in its eight vowel system that arose through coalescence from a system that had three vowels [ɑ ɛ̥ u] used in hiatus. The structure is below with potential coalescences in blue text. Which coalescences below are more likely considering palatalization of coronal stops/fricative, currently, a.) is conditioned by high vowels and b.) occurs after coalescence?

[ɑ.ɛ̥ > ɔ/ɐ]
{ɑ.u u.ɑ > o}
[ɛ̥.ɑ > ḁ/ɐ̥]
[ɛ̥.u > i̥/ə̥]
[u.ɛ̥ > ʊ/ə]
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2703
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 29 May 2019 19:47

I still have problems with my cross-referencing morphology.

There are 8 person/numeber/gender inflections for both the subject and the object: sg1, pl1exclusive, pl1inclusive, sg2, pl2, sg3masculine, sg3feminine, and pl3.
That makes 8^2= 64 transitive cross-referencing portmanteau morphs. When 1st persons cannot combine with 1st persons and 2nd persons cannot combine with second persons, the number will be 64 - 13 = 51.

Code: Select all

                           sg1, pl1exclusive, pl1inclusive, sg2, pl2, sg3masculine, sg3feminine, and pl3. 
sg1,                       -           -             -
pl1exclusive,              -           -             -
pl1inclusive,              -           -             -
sg2,                                                         -    -
pl2,                                                         -    -
sg3masculine, 
sg3feminine
 pl3. 
The intransitive inflection are (ATM) something like:
-ya sg1,
-yu pl1exclusive,
-yux pl1inclusive,
-xix sg2,
-xii pl2,
-k sg3masculine,
-c sg3feminine,
-p pl3.

My problem is that there is no clear value that should be zero-marked, like sg3>sg3 usually is. There are all M>M, M>F, F>M, F>F. If all of them, plus 3rd-person intransitive inflections are all one phoneme long, there are two many one-phoneme morphemes in the paradigm.
I would, however, like the morphemes to be all portmanteau, instead of the simple conparticular -k-k, -k-c, -c-k, -c-c

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 216
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 31 May 2019 13:09

The intransitive inflection are (ATM) something like:
Spoiler:
-ya sg1,
-yu pl1exclusive,
-yux pl1inclusive,
-xix sg2,
-xii pl2,
-k sg3masculine,
-c sg3feminine,
-p pl3.
My problem is that there is no clear value that should be zero-marked, like sg3>sg3 usually is. There are all M>M, M>F, F>M, F>F. If all of them, plus 3rd-person intransitive inflections are all one phoneme long, there are two many one-phoneme morphemes in the paradigm.
I would, however, like the morphemes to be all portmanteau, instead of the simple conparticular -k-k, -k-c, -c-k, -c-c
One way to zero mark is to get rid of the gender distinction in 3sg pronouns. But I imagine you want to keep them, so instead you can choose one pronoun to be default. If 3s.m is default, then M>M can be zero-marked; and you can extend the paradigm that F>F is also default unmarked, thus leaving two things leftover to create portmanteau prefixes for. You can also make zero-marking illegal.

One way to portmanteau things easily is diachronically using sound changes. Start with -k-k, -c-c, etc., and then apply some sound changes. Assimilation that crosses the vowel can be pretty cool (like the PIE *penkwe -> Latin quinque, where the 'p' has become a 'kw' to mimic the sound later in the word), along with voicing distinctions etc.

Another way to pormanteau, if you're using subject and object markers on the verb, is to have these markers coalesce onto the verb from having formerly been independent pronouns in nominative/accusative (or ergative/absolutive or focus/unfocused etc.). For example, if '-k' is the 3s.m subject affix, maybe have '-n' be the 3s.m object affix. That'd then create '-k-n' (or '-n-k' depending on the way around). Replicate across the board, throw in a few sounds changes, and voila! pormanteaus. A little realism could be added too if there was some syncretism - very few languages are entirely unambiguous about who's doing what to whom, with some preferring to specify the subject, and others the object; or some preferring to specify number over gender or the inverse.

Failing that, if you're happy to forego portmanteaus, you can have the subject affixes and object affixes occur on different parts of the verb. One can be a prefix; one can be a suffix; one latches onto auxiliaries and the other onto lexicals; and so on. I had a lang idea where the animate arguments were prefixed onto the verb, while inanimates were suffixed, and then a few sound changes later the animate arguments blended together. This gave me portmanteau-y ANIMATE>ANIMATE prefixes, with un-portmanteau'd inanimate suffixes.

Two questions.

1. I've been looking at PIE recently - the roots especially - and was wondering if anyone knew where I could find an overview of PIE phonetics/phonotactics? The roots have pretty clear phonal limits, but I wanted to know what the rules were for words.

2. Where can I learn about roots in other proto-languages? I'm thinking proto-turkic; proto-semitic; proto-sinic; and some native american ones. Any resources in this regard (preferably non-paper) would be most helpful.

Nloki
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 59
Joined: 15 Dec 2018 16:01

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

Post by Nloki » 01 Jun 2019 10:56

Hello. I've been having some problems regarding code display, since I just don't know how to use it.
I know that there's an image explaining the process (or at least that's what I think) at the Rules for Posting Conlangs topic. Although, I just can't see the image, whatever I try, seems like I cannot open it.
Someone could explain to me how does code display work, please?

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 308
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 01 Jun 2019 13:25

holbuzvala wrote:
31 May 2019 13:09
1. I've been looking at PIE recently - the roots especially - and was wondering if anyone knew where I could find an overview of PIE phonetics/phonotactics? The roots have pretty clear phonal limits, but I wanted to know what the rules were for words.
There's a researcher who has written a lot about this topic. His conclusions are very interesting and make PIE. look much more pronounceable and much less algebraic... for example, what is reconstructed as *sesdte "you (pl.) have sit down" was likely pronounced as [sɛːtstɛ]!
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

Benjaminmb
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 10
Joined: 01 Jun 2019 12:49

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

Post by Benjaminmb » 01 Jun 2019 14:09

What would be good case names for this case system:
Verbs can be either intransitive or transitive (also ditransitive, but for right now they behave like transitives)
Verbs take person endings for subject always, and optionally objects.
The subject endings for person can be either passive or active.
The passive endings for intransitive verbs are active endings for transitive verbs, and vice versa.
Case 1 is the subject of a transitive verb, and the indirect object of a ditransitive verb, if active.
Case 2 is the subject of an active intransitive verb and the object of a passive transitive verb.
Case 3 is the subject of a passive transitive verb and the object of a ditransitive verb in either voice.
Case 4 is the subject of a passive intransitive verb and the indirect object of a passive ditransitive verb.
Case 5 is the subject of a ditransitive verb in either voice, and the object of an active transitive verb.
Here are some examples, but I don’t really have enough other parts developed to show you in my language.
Ex:
The dog (Case 2) walks

The dog (Case 4) is walked

The dog (Case 1) drinks water (Case 5)

Water (Case 3) is drunk by the dog (Case 2)

I (Case 5) give water (Case 3) to the dog (Case 1)

Water (Case 5) is given to the dog (Case 4) by me (Case 3)

The dog (Case 5) is given water (Case 4) by me (Case 3)

If these can’t be named, I would keep these numbers, but I would rather all my cases have names, as the others do.

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 216
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 01 Jun 2019 15:54

@zekoslav thanks.

@Benjaminmb

I think you might have slightly misunderstood the purpose of passives. For this explanation, I won't be using the terms 'subject' and 'object' and 'indirect object', but rather 'agent' (the doer of an action), 'patient' (the thing the action is done upon), 'oblique' (anything else related to the action), and 'subject' (the subject of an instransitive verb/adjetc.). These collectively are called 'arguments'.

Intransitive verbs are characterised as having one argument: the subject. "The fire (subject) was burning", "The dog (subject) walked."

Transitive verbs are characterised by having two arguments: the agent and patient. "The fire (agent) burned me (patient)", "The man (agent) walked the dog (patient)." [NB In English, while 'walk' may look identical in its intransitive and transitive forms, it is not actually identical and is better thought of as two different verbs]

Ditransitive verbs are characterised by requiring three arguments: the agent, the patient, and the oblique. "The man (agent) gave a letter (patient) to his mother(oblique)."

The number of arguments a verb takes is called its valency. Passivisation is an example of a valency-changing operation - namely, to reduce the number of arguments by one. So the phrase "The fire burned me" (which has a valency of 2) would passivise into "I was burned" (valency of 1). The agent of the sentence is being removed, leaving only the patient as the sole argument - this would now be treated as a 'subject'. Same thing for turning "The man walked the dog" to "The dog was walked".

In such as way, we then see it's impossible to passivise an intransitive verb (because that would leave you with a verb with zero arguments, which SFAIK is not something natural human languages do), so your example of Case 3 can be got rid of.

In fact, working off this paradigm, I made a drawing and drew (literally and metaphorically) the following conclusions:

- Case 1 is for agents of transitive verbs, or obliques of ditransitives
- Cases 2,3,4 can be used for subjects (this includes both 'true' subjects of intransitive verbs, and those patients that have become subjects through passivisation)
- Case 3 can be used for patients of ditransitive verbs
- Case 5 is for patients of transitive verbs, or agents of ditransitive verbs.

Now, here we come to the idea of 'alignment'. This has to do with how your language treats certain things. In nominative-accusative aligned languages, the subject and agent are treated the same (and usually default unmarked), with overt marking on patients. Ergative-absolutive languages treat subjects the same as patients (usually unmarked), with the agent marked. Some languages have a mixed system depending on tense or animacy hierarchy, while other have a split/fluid system where things might be marked one way or another because of the amount of volition they have (namely, for intransitives, marking subjects the same way as agents are marked if it's a volitional verb like 'walk' or 'run'; or marking subjects like how patients are marked if the act is less volitional: 'drown', 'die', 'fall').

Looking at your system, it appears to be tri-partite (as agent, subject, and patient are all marked differently - Case 1, 2/3/4, and 5 respectively), with some totally weird stuff going on with ditransitives. Weird doesn't mean bad - but I'd like to hear your thoughts on how it might be justified, or how it makes sense in your mind to have things this way.

As for names:
Case 1 = agentive
Case 2/3/4 = subjective
Case 5 = patientive

My personal opinion on what to do:
Spoiler:
- Merge 2/3/4 into a single subjective case
- Change Case 1 so it is for the agent of transitive AND ditransitive verbs
- Change Case 5 so it is only for patients
- Read about alignment. Once you have a good grasp of it, then you can go about and mess it up. All great art begins with imitation, and once the rules are learned, you can bend/break them for greatness. Picasso began with life-drawing.
I hope this helps.

N.B. Some languages don't have passives at all. Some use case marking and just leave out the agent; some require an agent like 'someone' or 'something'. Just something to chew on.
N.B2. Some languages treat obliques and patients with the same marking (#Arabic)

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2834
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 01 Jun 2019 17:31

Nloki wrote:
01 Jun 2019 10:56
Hello. I've been having some problems regarding code display, since I just don't know how to use it.
I know that there's an image explaining the process (or at least that's what I think) at the Rules for Posting Conlangs topic. Although, I just can't see the image, whatever I try, seems like I cannot open it.
Someone could explain to me how does code display work, please?
The code tags display text in a monospace font. Their main use here is for creating tables to demonstrate things like declension or conjugation. Here's an example with Latin:

Code: Select all

     SG       PL
NOM  cattus   cattī
GEN  cattī    cattōrum
DAT  cattō    cattīs
ACC  cattum   cattōs
ABL  cattō    cattīs
VOC  catte    cattī
Since the characters are all the same width, you can align the columns by adding the correct number of spaces. Does that help?

Nloki
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 59
Joined: 15 Dec 2018 16:01

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

Post by Nloki » 01 Jun 2019 17:36

Dormouse559 wrote:
01 Jun 2019 17:31
Nloki wrote:
01 Jun 2019 10:56
Hello. I've been having some problems regarding code display, since I just don't know how to use it.
I know that there's an image explaining the process (or at least that's what I think) at the Rules for Posting Conlangs topic. Although, I just can't see the image, whatever I try, seems like I cannot open it.
Someone could explain to me how does code display work, please?
The code tags display text in a monospace font. Their main use here is for creating tables to demonstrate things like declension or conjugation. Here's an example with Latin:

Code: Select all

     SG       PL
NOM  cattus   cattī
GEN  cattī    cattōrum
DAT  cattō    cattīs
ACC  cattum   cattōs
ABL  cattō    cattīs
VOC  catte    cattī
Since the characters are all the same width, you can align the columns by adding the correct number of spaces. Does that help?
It certainly does, thank you.

Benjaminmb
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 10
Joined: 01 Jun 2019 12:49

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

Post by Benjaminmb » 01 Jun 2019 18:56

@holbuzvala
Thanks for your feedback. This language isn’t supposed to be all that naturalistic, so I’m fine with the alignment being quite strange- I probably should have said that earlier. I’m still working out some parts of the other case system, and I’ll post more about that later. I think I’m going to turn my “passive” into some sort of topic-switching operation that doesn’t decrease valency, but that can be translated by a passive in certain cases in English. That leaves me with another thing I don’t have a name for. I’m still working out some bits of how this strange system came about. It probably started as a simple active/passive split, probably as a split ergative language with strange ditransitives. The voice was marked on subject person endings. The passive voice marking then shifted to being for intransitives, because passives often decreased valency. The case system is also becoming tripartite at about the same time. A new non-valency decreasing passive then emerged, where intransitives were marked with transitive endings and vice versa. This changes it a little bit from the case system I first laid out.

User avatar
Reyzadren
greek
greek
Posts: 481
Joined: 14 May 2017 10:39
Contact:

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

Post by Reyzadren » 02 Jun 2019 01:05

holbuzvala wrote:
01 Jun 2019 15:54
The number of arguments a verb takes is called its valency. Passivisation is an example of a valency-changing operation - namely, to reduce the number of arguments by one. So the phrase "The fire burned me" (which has a valency of 2) would passivise into "I was burned" (valency of 1). The agent of the sentence is being removed, leaving only the patient as the sole argument - this would now be treated as a 'subject'. Same thing for turning "The man walked the dog" to "The dog was walked".

In such as way, we then see it's impossible to passivise an intransitive verb (because that would leave you with a verb with zero arguments, which SFAIK is not something natural human languages do), so your example of Case 3 can be got rid of.
Just a small note. Passivation might not change valency in languages with the trigger alignment (as in my conlang), and hence, it is possible to passivate intransitive verbs there. (This could also be due to the fact that transitives/intransitives are defined as something else in other langs)
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang

Post Reply