Page 292 of 292

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

Posted: 05 Dec 2019 18:20
by yangfiretiger121
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?

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

Posted: 05 Dec 2019 18:28
by loglorn
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

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

Posted: 05 Dec 2019 18:38
by Dormouse559
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.

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

Posted: 05 Dec 2019 20:19
by yangfiretiger121
Thanks guys.

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

Posted: 06 Dec 2019 02:51
by DesEsseintes
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.

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

Posted: 06 Dec 2019 04:56
by LinguistCat
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".

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

Posted: 06 Dec 2019 04:59
by Pabappa
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?"

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

Posted: 06 Dec 2019 05:02
by spanick
Yeah, I’ve only ever heard “bat and eyelash” as a reference to flirting. The expression I’m familiar with is “bay an eye.”

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

Posted: 06 Dec 2019 05:20
by Dormouse559
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.

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

Posted: 06 Dec 2019 10:24
by yangfiretiger121
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)

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

Posted: 08 Dec 2019 02:52
by Khemehekis
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?

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

Posted: 08 Dec 2019 17:05
by Omzinesý
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.

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

Posted: 08 Dec 2019 19:29
by yangfiretiger121
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]

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

Posted: 08 Dec 2019 19:49
by Shemtov
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"?

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

Posted: 08 Dec 2019 21:49
by sangi39
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".