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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

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

Post by clawgrip » 13 Nov 2015 01:08

Micamo wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:No, this is a participial phrase, so called for having a participle in it.
Well, apparently you can analyse participial phrases as a form of relative clause in English, for obvious reasons. The fact remains, however, that they are participial, and distinct from relative clauses in the narrow sense.
Compare similar phrases such as:

The astronaut flying to the moon
The wolf eating the sheep
The sheep running from the wolf

The flying astronaut
The eating wolf
The running sheep

*The flying to the moon astronaut
*The eating the sheep wolf
*The running from the wolf sheep

I don't see anything that you gain, in terms of analysis, by calling "flying", "eating", and "running" in the first three examples "participles" as opposed to just calling them progressive verbs in a relative clause. You can call this particular type of RC a "participial phrase" if you want to, but I don't think this terminology does anything but confuse.
What you "gain" is a more concise description. Participial phrases are basically relative clauses that you have dropped the relative pronoun and the auxiliary from. In other types of relative clause, you can't. Compare:

The astronaut who is flying to the moon is my uncle.
The astronaut who flew to the moon is my uncle.

The astronaut flying to the moon is my uncle.
*The astronaut flew to the moon is my uncle.

They pattern more with adjectives than verbs:

The astronaut who is ready to get on the rocket is my uncle.
The astronaut ready to get on the rocket is my uncle.

Clearly there is a distinction. What you gain is being able to articulate that distinction.

felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 392
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

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

Post by felipesnark » 13 Nov 2015 02:37

DesEsseintes wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:
Micamo wrote:Translation fallacy: Just because ʾolmayu is translated as "where", doesn't mean that it always means the same thing or always behaves the same way as "where" does in English. You could just as easily translate Ahzoh's sentence as "I don't know the place that I inhabit" if you want the english to match the syntactic structure of the Vrkhazhian more precisely.
I also do this with "what" and "when", something like:
"I do not understand what that I see"
"I do not know where that I live
"I do not know when that I will come"
"I do not know how that I will survive this disaster"
I take it the what, where, when, and how are identical to the corresponding interrogatives except for extra case marking on some of them?

If that is so, I like this system a lot, Ahzoh!
[+1] I'm a bit late to the party, but I also like this system quite a bit, Ahzoh! It has inspired me to use a similar system for Shonkasika, at least for similar "indefinite" noun clauses. I was actually racking my brain about it today.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 13 Nov 2015 02:39

because Micamo seems to be hitting the nail on the head. (since you didn't reply to my question to you about particles)
She's not hitting the nail on anything. Ad I didn't answer your question because it was stupid: we're talking about participles not particles.
please, what is an auxiliary verb, Azoh?
I'm not gonna answer such a silly question. You know what it is and I know what it is.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2383
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

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

Post by Keenir » 13 Nov 2015 03:26

Ahzoh wrote:
because Micamo seems to be hitting the nail on the head. (since you didn't reply to my question to you about particles)
She's not hitting the nail on anything. Ad I didn't answer your question because it was stupid: we're talking about participles not particles.
and please explain for those of us (ie me) who aren't clear on the differences.
please, what is an auxiliary verb, Azoh?
I'm not gonna answer such a silly question. You know what it is and I know what it is.
actually, no i don't know.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

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

Post by clawgrip » 13 Nov 2015 03:35

Keenir wrote: and please explain for those of us (ie me) who aren't clear on the differences.
Well, this discussion has not been about particles, so I don't see the point in bringing it up, but:

Particles are an ill-defined category of function words that generally must be used with another word. They can act in a way similar to case markers, conjunctions, verb conjugation markers (e.g. to in "to go"), question or pragmatic markers, etc. The trouble with these words is that they often straddle categories, like for example "on" in "keep on talking" is like an adverb, but in "on the table" it's a preposition. In Japanese, several words can act either as case markers/postpositions or as conjunctions. So it's hard to define these words.

Participles are ill-defined verb forms that function similar to adjectives. The discussion here seems to be about how to distinguish relative clauses from participles/participial phrases.

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 13 Nov 2015 04:01

clawgrip wrote:Participles are ill-defined verb forms that function similar to adjectives. The discussion here seems to be about how to distinguish relative clauses from participles/participial phrases.
I wasn't making such a distinction: a relative clause could be headed by a verb in a participle verb form or could be headed by relative pronoun.

Some adjectives ending in -ing and -ed are in fact participle forms that have become true adjectives. Participles are not true adjectives though.

And you can test this with words like "very".
You can say "a very entertaining man", but you cannot say "The man very entertaining the old folks". The latter is a participle-turned-true-adjective while the latter is simply a participle heading a relative clause.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

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

Post by clawgrip » 13 Nov 2015 04:20

To use the proper grammatical terms, the first is an adjectival participle (or some othe configuration of these two terms), while the second is a participial phrase. The first is identical to other adjectives, while the second is similar, but not identical, to other relative clauses, due to its ability to drop the relative pronoun and the auxiliary (see my previous post on this).

Odkidstr
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 101
Joined: 27 May 2015 20:26

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

Post by Odkidstr » 13 Nov 2015 04:55

clawgrip wrote:
Keenir wrote: and please explain for those of us (ie me) who aren't clear on the differences.
Well, this discussion has not been about particles, so I don't see the point in bringing it up, but:

Particles are an ill-defined category of function words that generally must be used with another word. They can act in a way similar to case markers, conjunctions, verb conjugation markers (e.g. to in "to go"), question or pragmatic markers, etc. The trouble with these words is that they often straddle categories, like for example "on" in "keep on talking" is like an adverb, but in "on the table" it's a preposition. In Japanese, several words can act either as case markers/postpositions or as conjunctions. So it's hard to define these words.

Participles are ill-defined verb forms that function similar to adjectives. The discussion here seems to be about how to distinguish relative clauses from participles/participial phrases.
Couldn't "keep on" in "keep on talking" be seen as a verb itself? I mean, technically it could become "kept on" or something I suppose, where "on" isn't conjugated like a verb, but it seems more like a single verb than anything else.

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

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

Post by clawgrip » 13 Nov 2015 05:19

Yes, that's the interesting thing about phrasal verbs: syntactically they act like two or more words (e.g. put out → put the fire out), yet semantically they act as a single word (put the fire out = extinguish the fire).

So what is "out" in this context? It's more than an adverb, since it is not simply showing manner but actually significantly altering the meaning, and less than a verb, since it does not conjugate and cannot stand on its own. So it gets thrown into the particle category i.e. "some word that is there".

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 13 Nov 2015 05:42

clawgrip wrote:Yes, that's the interesting thing about phrasal verbs: syntactically they act like two or more words (e.g. put out → put the fire out), yet semantically they act as a single word (put the fire out = extinguish the fire).

So what is "out" in this context? It's more than an adverb, since it is not simply showing manner but actually significantly altering the meaning, and less than a verb, since it does not conjugate and cannot stand on its own. So it gets thrown into the particle category i.e. "some word that is there".
It's a converb or a preverb.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

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

Post by clawgrip » 13 Nov 2015 05:58

It's not a converb, because these show adverbial subordination, not semantic modification. There is no other clause, implied or otherwise, for this one to interact with, which is a necessary element for converbs. It's not a preverb either, because, while these can modify verbs semantically, they are inseparable prefixes. And if you talk about separable verb affixes, well, once they separate, what are they? They're not affixes, because they're not affixed to anything. They're particles.
Last edited by clawgrip on 13 Nov 2015 06:03, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 13 Nov 2015 05:59

What effect does devoicing initial consonants have on tone?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 13 Nov 2015 06:04

Ahzoh wrote:
clawgrip wrote:Participles are ill-defined verb forms that function similar to adjectives. The discussion here seems to be about how to distinguish relative clauses from participles/participial phrases.
I wasn't making such a distinction: a relative clause could be headed by a verb in a participle verb form or could be headed by relative pronoun.

Some adjectives ending in -ing and -ed are in fact participle forms that have become true adjectives. Participles are not true adjectives though.

And you can test this with words like "very".
You can say "a very entertaining man", but you cannot say "The man very entertaining the old folks". The latter is a participle-turned-true-adjective while the latter is simply a participle heading a relative clause.
Why wouldn't you say that some adjectives just can't take very? You wouldn't say "the very ultimate thing", unless maybe you meant ultimate as in last.
clawgrip wrote:It's not a converb, because these show adverbial subordination, not semantic modification. There is no other clause, implied or otherwise, for this one to interact with, which is a necessary element for converbs. It's not a preverb either, because, while these can modify verbs semantically, they are inseparable prefixes. And if you talk about separable verb affixes, well, once they separate, what are they? They're not affixes, because they're not affixed to anything. They're particles.
Ich sehe das nicht so an.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 619
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 23:01

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

Post by Sumelic » 13 Nov 2015 06:07

Shemtov wrote:What effect does devoicing initial consonants have on tone?
I think it often *doesn't* have an effect. From what I understand, that's a common way contrastive tone originates: we start out with a system where word-initial voiced consonants cause allophonic low tone on the initial syllable, then the initial voiced consonants devoice, but the low tone remains. IIRC tone is becoming the main differentiator in Korean between the voiced~tenuis and the aspirated series of stops at the start of a word.

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 13 Nov 2015 06:11

HoskhMatriarch wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:
clawgrip wrote:Participles are ill-defined verb forms that function similar to adjectives. The discussion here seems to be about how to distinguish relative clauses from participles/participial phrases.
I wasn't making such a distinction: a relative clause could be headed by a verb in a participle verb form or could be headed by relative pronoun.

Some adjectives ending in -ing and -ed are in fact participle forms that have become true adjectives. Participles are not true adjectives though.

And you can test this with words like "very".
You can say "a very entertaining man", but you cannot say "The man very entertaining the old folks". The latter is a participle-turned-true-adjective while the latter is simply a participle heading a relative clause.
Why wouldn't you say that some adjectives just can't take very? You wouldn't say "the very ultimate thing", unless maybe you meant ultimate as in last.
But no matter what specific context "ultimate" means, you can most certainly use "very" to it, since they all involve finality and "very" can be used emphatically. That seems natural to me.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

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

Post by clawgrip » 13 Nov 2015 06:15

HoskhMatriarch wrote:Ich sehe das nicht so an.
何か説明書いてくれる?それだけじゃ何が言いたいか分からない。

I'm having some fun of course, but still.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore » 13 Nov 2015 06:24

(Because the bulk of this post is more about my conlang and less about specific natlangs, I reposted it here. I originally posted it in the L&L thread.)
loglorn wrote:I think it's probably just the fricatives that are syllabic. Considering the most sonorous thing to be the nucleus is usually good measure.
According to that article on Berber referred to previously;
(1) The sonority order in Berber is:
voiceless stops < voiced stops < voiceless fricatives < voiced fricatives < nasals < liquids < semivowels (they call them "high vocoids"; IIUC rounded "vocoids" would also fit here) < vowels
That's mostly pretty consistent with what many languages that have a sonority hierarchy have; but sonority hierarchies are language-specific, though there is quite a bit of cross-linguistic similarity. Some languages have sounds that aren't included above; they fit them into their sonority hierarchy if they use one. Some languages have a much coarser, less-detailed sonority hierarchy; some have a much finer, more-detailed, sonority hierarchy.

(2) A sonority peak (more sonorous than the preceding phoneme (if there is a preceding phoneme in the same word) and more sonorous than the following phoneme (if there is a following phoneme in the same word) is a syllable nucleus.

It looks to be that in that dialect of Berber only voiceless stops couldn't ever be nuclear. But maybe even they can be; I'd need to read the article more carefully to decide.

Many languages have "rules" that the phonemes in an onset must not decrease in sonority; or must increase in sonority; or must increase "jump up" or "skip up" by some minimum amount; as one moves from the beginning of the syllable towards the nucleus.
Many languages have "rules" that the phonemes in a coda must not increase in sonority; or must decrease in sonority; or must decrease "jump down" or "skip down" by some minimum amount; as one moves from the nucleus of the syllable towards the end of the syllable.
Adpihi's arrangement is not far-fetched.
A syllable begins just before a sonority trough, or the first phoneme of the word.
Each subsequent phoneme in the syllable's body (the part that isn't the coda) must be more sonorous.
The nucleus is the sonority peak.
Each subsequent phoneme in the syllable's rime (the part that isn't the onset) must be less sonorous.
The syllable ends just before a sonority trough, or at the end of the word.

So;
(1) if two phonemes in the same syllable are both in the same syllable margin -- both in the onset or both in the coda -- then the one closer to the nucleus must be more sonorous than the one further from the nucleus.
In addition;
(2) if two phonemes in the same syllable are equidistant from the nucleus, then the one in the coda must be more sonorous than the one in the onset.
(3) if two phonemes in the same syllable are both in the same syllable margin -- both in the onset or both in the coda -- and one is voiced while the other is unvoiced, then the voiced phoneme must be closer to the nucleus than the unvoiced phoneme.


Adpihi's sonority hierarchy is:
stops, plosives, taps, flaps, etc. < fricatives, spirants, etc. < nasals < liquids < semivowels < vowels.
Let's number these in order of increasing sonority;
1. stops (T)
2. fricatives (F)
3. nasals (N)
4. liquids (L)
5. semivowels (W)
6. vowels (V)

If I encounter a consonant-cluster like T1F1T2F2 at the beginning of a word, then I know T1F1 is a syllable, and T2F2 is, or is the beginning of, the next syllable.
This isn't entirely impossible in Adpihi. A four-consonant root might be put into a binyan that doesn't have any vowels between the roots' consonants. So the word's root-part would be a four-consonant cluster.
Adpihi doesn't have clusters for nuclei. (In particular it doesn't have diphthongs or triphthongs or tetraphthongs.)
If we encounter a phoneme-string like TFFT or FNNF or NLLN or LWWL or WVVW, then there is a syllable boundary between the two phonemes of equal, and highest, sonority.
So Adpihi doesn't have the "no hiatus" rule that that article's dialect of Berber has. In particular, two consecutive vowels in the same word must belong to two different syllables; so instead of diphthongs, Adpihi has hiatuses.

There's also a syllable-boundary between two phonemes of equal and lowest sonority.
If we encounter a phoneme-string such as FTTF or NFFN or LNNL or WLLW or VWWV, then there is a syllable boundary between the two consecutive phonemes of like sonority that are less sonorous than the one before them both and than the one after them both.

TFFFT would be syllabized as TF F FT.
FNNNF would be syllabized as FN N NF.
NLLLN would be syllabized as NL L LN.
LWWWL would be syllabized as LW W WL.
WVVVW would be syllabized as WV V VW.

If a word begins with two phonemes of equal sonority both less than the sonority of the next phoneme after them both, then an exception might be made that allows both of those first two phonemes to be part of the onset of the word's first syllable. (The third phoneme will also be part of the body of the word's first syllable.)
If a word ends with two phonemes of equal sonority both less than the sonority of the phoneme immediately preceding them both, then an exception might be made that allows both of those last two phonemes to be part of the coda of the word's last syllable. (The third-from-last phoneme will also be part of the rime of the word's last syllable.)

I don't know what to do yet for trough-clusters of three or more consecutive phonemes in the interior of a word equally sonorous with each other, and less sonorous than the phoneme before the first of them (in the same word) and the phoneme after the last of them (in the same word).
I suppose if such a longish trough-cluster began or ended the word, it could be part of the onset of the word's first syllable, or the coda of the word's last syllable; but I don't like that idea. Maybe I'll come to like it; or maybe I'll find out it never has to happen.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 19 Nov 2018 02:24, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4511
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 13 Nov 2015 10:25

Shemtov wrote:What effect does devoicing initial consonants have on tone?
Actually it can have two effects:

Sometimes devoicing initial consoants is a neutralization, which affects tone by chesirization, so that a tone following an initial consonant can become low, if the consonant was voiced before. That is because of the phonetic effects of voicing. Vowels after voiced consonants are phonetically lower than vowel after voiced consonants. (That makes sense, because voicing is accoustically a concentration of energy in the lower frequencies. ) If the voicing contrast is neutralized now, the phonetic pitch change in following vowels may become phonological.

The other option is very similar, only the ordering is different, when the neutralization happens, but the phonetic effects are still dependent on the voicing after the neutralization. If now tone is introduced, it might be a high tone, because the consonant before it is voiceless.
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]

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1687
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 13 Nov 2015 16:27

clawgrip wrote:To use the proper grammatical terms, the first is an adjectival participle (or some othe configuration of these two terms), while the second is a participial phrase. The first is identical to other adjectives, while the second is similar, but not identical, to other relative clauses, due to its ability to drop the relative pronoun and the auxiliary (see my previous post on this).
I disagree. "Entertaining" in "The very entertaining man" is a true adjective.

You can see both semantic and syntactic distinctions here, because the adjective is homophonous with the adjectival participle. So note:
"Our new canape forks are a must for the entertaining hostess" = for the hostess who entertains, and is doing so at this point, participle
"My canape forks were given to me by an entertaining hostess" = by a hostess who I find 'entertaining', in the sense of amusement, adjective

And accordingly the adjective can be modified but the participle can't:
*Our new canape forks are a must for the very entertaining hostess = forces adjectival interpretation

Also semantically notable are that the adjectival interpretation gives a property relative to the frame of the utterance, whereas the participle gives a property relative to the frame of the content, and the participle ascribes a higher degree of agency.

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 13 Nov 2015 16:36

clawgrip wrote:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:Ich sehe das nicht so an.
何か説明書いてくれる?それだけじゃ何が言いたいか分からない。

I'm having some fun of course, but still.
Well, Google Translate translates what you said as

Something manual stomach go Re that ? Its been but only Flip ~Ya minute from gastric or stomach what had word .

So I'm not sure how to respond to that.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

Post Reply