Tz'airuch

[HoskhMatriarch]

Tz'airuch (phonetically approximately [ˈt͡s'a̰ɪ̰̯.ʀʊ̹x]) is the language of a stateless tribe who live in the White Mountains to the northwest of Galeem (phonetically approximately [ˈga.ɺeːm]) out beyond the Pealtz (phonetically approximately [pʰɛɑ̯lt͡s], officially called the Pealti [ˈpea̯ɺ.ti] in the dialect of Kaltha [ˈkaɺ.θa]), a region of lower mountains and hills. They do have settled agriculture, unlike some of the other mountain tribes which actually are nomadic, although theirs is different in nature to that of Galeem, and they're infamous for putting up an actual (and successful) armed resistance to being conquered by Galeem instead of just running away, which gets them stereotyped similarly to how Romans viewed Germanic tribes or the Imperial Chinese viewed the "raw barbarians". Since they are fairly settled, they have some rudimentary writing, and they have a very elaborate culture in general (which of course all groups do, but in this case it's counter to stereotypes), especially oral and musical culture, although a lot of their genealogies are likely not actually true due to the people who run away from elsewhere to join them (often to escape slavery, other punishment, or economic hardship).

Phonology:

/m n ŋ/ <m n ń>
/p b̥ p' t d̥ t' k g̥ k' q ɢ̥ q' ʔ/ <p b p' t d t' k g k' q gq q' '>
/t͡s d̥͡z̥ t͡s' t͡ʃ d̥͡ʒ̥ t͡ʃ'/ <tz z tz' tj dj tj'>
/f v̥ f' s z̥ s' ʃ ʒ̥ ʃ'x ɣ̥ x' χ ʁ̥ χ' h/ <f v f' sz s sz' ch gh ch' qh gqh qh' h>
/ʋ j l ʀ/ <w j l r>

/i iː y yː u uː/ <i ii ü üü u uu>
e eː ø øː o oː/ <e ee ö öö o oo>
ɛ ɛː œ œː ɔ ɔː ə/ <ä ää œ oœ å åå e>
a aː/ <a aa>
aɪ̯ ɛɪ̯ aʊ̯ ɔʏ̯ ɔʊ̯ œʏ̯/ <ai ei au äu ou öu>

(I apologize for the awful romanization. I don't think there's any way to make it look much better unfortunately.)

The opposition between /t d̥ s z̥.../ is an opposition of articulatory force with concomitant length, although not as long as geminate consonants, and a longer lenis consonant does not make a fortis one. The lenis consonants do appear voiced when between two vowels or other resonants, while the fortis do not. Stops are also aspirated at the ends of words.

Vowels have significant allophony, with all short tense vowels being reduced to short lax vowels [ɪ ʏ ʊ ɛ œ ɔ ɐ] in unstressed syllables, and the same in closed syllables except for [ɐ]. /ə/ and syllabic consonants also only appear in unstressed syllables and unstressed function words.

All vowel-initial words begin with a phonetic glottal stop, even when following other words or in compounds, but this is contrasted with a phonemic glottal stop in the case of prefixing:

is' [ʔɪs'] "it is"
qhis' [χɪs'] "I am"
'äńg [ʔɛŋg̥ʰ] "it stands"
qh'äńg [χ'ɛŋg̥ʰ] "I stand"

The phonotactics are quite complex, with the only rule being that things have to generally follow the sonority hierarchy, and all the obstruents in a cluster have to be lenis, fortis, or ejective. If the are multiple stops in a cluster, only the last one is released, and if there are multiple ejectives in a cluster, they are all said with the glottis moving once. Any sound can appear in the onset or coda except /ŋ/ cannot appear in the onset.

Now what should I post about next? Probably I should post about noun classes but noun classes really show up on a lot of different things so that doesn't narrow it down much. Or I could post about the middle voice, which does everything, or the internally-headed relative clauses, or applicatives and double-object constructions.

[HoskhMatriarch]

OK, the language name will probably need to get tweaked soon in accordance with the morphology, but eh.

Nouns:

Classes: Nouns have 6 classes. I'm really not sure what they're based on but I know exactly which class each noun should go in. When I figure out the rules I'll post them. They're largely semantically based but you also have things like "the Sun is feminine" that probably don't qualify.

Plurals: Currently there are three plurals, one with a-umlaut on the stem and a velar nasal in some cases, one with a glottal stop and u-umlaut, and one with reduplication of the stem (so you don't have to say compound words twice). The plurals are somehow predictable but I'm not sure what the patterns are. Highly animate nouns generally have one of the first two and very inanimate nouns generally have the reduplication, which forms a collective on highly animate nouns.

Cases: Nouns undergo i-umlaut or a-umlaut in non-nominative cases. The accusative case is just the stem change while the genitive also takes an -s. There is also case stacking.


Definiteness: Definite nouns are marked by an -r, which may be syllabic or in the coda of a syllable with a vowel. Indefinite nouns are marked with nothing.

[HoskhMatriarch]

This thread doesn't seem to be getting much interest. Apparently languages with clicks that aren't very well-developed are more interesting than languages with odd morphosyntax that are. But eh, most people here seem to be fixated on phoneme inventories and not care about much anything else, judging based on the contents of threads here.

The middle voice: The middle voice has many functions. It is formed through a prefix that consists of the onset of the root followed by a shortened version of the nucleus (a short/reduced vowel in the case of a long vowel and a schwa in the case of a short vowel).

Reflexive: This is probably what most people think of with a middle voice. This is done by having agentive agreement on the verb:

t-rä~rääv
3S.MASC.AGT-MID~wash
"He washes himself"

Passive: This also uses the middle voice, but with patientive agreement on the verb.

rä~reev-tze
MID~wash/3S.MASC.PAT-3S.MASC.PAT
"He is washed"

Reciporical: It can also be reciporical when there is more than one agent, although this is sometimes ambiguous with a reflexive with a plural subject.

r-ru~ruum
3S.G3.AGT-MID~love
"They love each other"/"They love themselves"
(This word is [ˌʀ̩.ʀʊˈʀuːm]. That was not intentional.)

Finally, via possessor raising, it can be used to show an incorporated object belongs to the subject of the sentence.

t-qhaun-rä~rääv
3S.MASC.AGT-ring-MID~wash
"He washes his ring(s)"

It is not used for inalienable possession.

t-pair-rääv
3S.MASC.AGT-hand-wash
"He washes his hands"/"He washes his hand" (less likely)

There are no distinct reflexive pronouns, so with adpositional phrases, what the phrase is referring to has to be inferred, but if it is ever ambiguous, it can be made unambiguous through using the middle voice and an applicative.

If anyone has any requests for what I should do next, you can ask, since it's hard to decide what to post next. I need more words to do much anything so I think I'll just work on making more of those.

[shanoxilt]

If anyone has any requests for what I should do next, you can ask, since it's hard to decide what to post next. I need more words to do much anything so I think I'll just work on making more of those.

Translating long sentences is one way to find any problem areas in a language.

Try the first stanza of Poe's The Raven.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door —
Only this, and nothing more.

[Sumelic]

Plurals: Currently there are three plurals, one with a-umlaut on the stem and a velar nasal in some cases, one with a glottal stop and u-umlaut, and one with reduplication of the stem (so you don't have to say compound words twice). The plurals are somehow predictable but I'm not sure what the patterns are. Highly animate nouns generally have one of the first two and very inanimate nouns generally have the reduplication, which forms a collective on highly animate nouns.

How do collective nouns work exactly? Would it be something like police (singular, one police officer), polüce' (plural, several police officers), police-police (collective, a police force)? Also, if the verbs have number agreement, what kind of agreement do collective nouns/inanimate plurals trigger, singular or plural?

all the obstruents in a cluster have to be lenis, fortis, or ejective

What happens phonologically when the morphology brings consonants of different types together, such as in "rä~reev-tze"? Is it generally regressive assimilation?

Another question: is the slash in glosses like rä~reev-tze "MID~wash/3S.MASC.PAT-3S.MASC.PAT" representing the umlaut that occurs? The Leipzig Glossing rules seems to indicate that a backslash can be used for this purpose, but I wasn't familiar with this, and you're using a forward slash here.

I'd be interested in seeing more on verbs in the future. You also haven't mentioned adjectives yet: what are they like?

[Fanael]

This thread doesn't seem to be getting much interest. Apparently languages with clicks that aren't very well-developed are more interesting than languages with odd morphosyntax that are. But eh, most people here seem to be fixated on phoneme inventories and not care about much anything else, judging based on the contents of threads here.

This attitude is probably why.

[MrKrov]

Maybe also the paucity of details. Really, was just a brief description of phones and a brief listing of categories for one part of speech. Hardly odd and much less well developed.

But yeah that too.

[HoskhMatriarch]

Plurals: Currently there are three plurals, one with a-umlaut on the stem and a velar nasal in some cases, one with a glottal stop and u-umlaut, and one with reduplication of the stem (so you don't have to say compound words twice). The plurals are somehow predictable but I'm not sure what the patterns are. Highly animate nouns generally have one of the first two and very inanimate nouns generally have the reduplication, which forms a collective on highly animate nouns.

How do collective nouns work exactly? Would it be something like police (singular, one police officer), polüce' (plural, several police officers), police-police (collective, a police force)? Also, if the verbs have number agreement, what kind of agreement do collective nouns/inanimate plurals trigger, singular or plural?

all the obstruents in a cluster have to be lenis, fortis, or ejective

What happens phonologically when the morphology brings consonants of different types together, such as in "rä~reev-tze"? Is it generally regressive assimilation?

Another question: is the slash in glosses like rä~reev-tze "MID~wash/3S.MASC.PAT-3S.MASC.PAT" representing the umlaut that occurs? The Leipzig Glossing rules seems to indicate that a backslash can be used for this purpose, but I wasn't familiar with this, and you're using a forward slash here.

I'd be interested in seeing more on verbs in the future. You also haven't mentioned adjectives yet: what are they like?

Yes. Also it would be singular, since I think it's only plural in British English. I feel like the plurals don't make much sense so I'll probably change those, but I like the rest of the nominal morphology.

If the consonants aren't in the same syllable, that isn't considered a cluster and they're left alone. Otherwise yes, there's assimilation, but it tends to be progressive for suffixes added to roots.

Well, that's what that's supposed to be. I'll change it to the proper slash next time.

Adjectives are still being worked out. They're probably going to be the hardest thing.

This thread doesn't seem to be getting much interest. Apparently languages with clicks that aren't very well-developed are more interesting than languages with odd morphosyntax that are. But eh, most people here seem to be fixated on phoneme inventories and not care about much anything else, judging based on the contents of threads here.

This attitude is probably why.

Sorry. I'll say people aren't obsessed with phoneme inventories when they don't actually appear to be obsessed with phoneme inventories.

Maybe also the paucity of details. Really, was just a brief description of phones and a brief listing of categories for one part of speech. Hardly odd and much less well developed.

It's more well-developed than my unnamed click language. And did you miss the thing on the middle voice?

[HoskhMatriarch]

Ditransitives and Applicatives:

Ditransitive verbs are handled through double-object constructions.

ghäär-r qhe-qh'aul-sei'-tze
man\ACC-DEF 1S.AGT-apple-give\3S.MASC.PAT-3S.MASC.PAT
"I give the apple to the man."

(That is the most neutral way to say that.)

The verb always agrees with the secondary object. However, if you want to emphasize the thing that is being given, you can move it to the first position in the sentence.

qh'äul-r ghäär-r qh-sei'-tze
apple\ACC-DEF man\ACC-DEF 1S.AGT-give/3S.MASC.PAT-3S.MASC.PAT
"I give the apple to the man."/"The apple, I give to the man."

Applicatives work the same way.

bich-qh-håål-he
BEN.APPL-1S.AGT-go\3S.FEM.AGT-3S.FEM.PAT
"I go for her"
(I feel like this one might end up with a schwa when it's said but since /χ/ is dorsal and /h/ is glottal they seem easier to say in a cluster than, say /χ/ and /x/, which would definitely get an extra schwa.)

If both of the secondary objects have the same number and gender, the sentence is just ambiguous, although context generally makes it clear what is happening, and if it doesn't, you can reword the sentence like you do with ambiguous sentences in English and other languages.

I should probably do the root serialization stuff next since it's probably the only thing I could do that people haven't seen. I was going to do comparatives but that would be better once I have attributive adjectives done, even though I have the comparative construction itself done (it's just a locative comparative, but people might not be very familiar with that since most languages I've seen have the European-style particle comparatives with adjectives inflected for degrees of comparison).

[shimobaatar]

Tz'airuch (phonetically approximately [ˈt͡s'a̰ɪ̰̯.ʀʊ̹x]) is the language of a stateless tribe who live in the White Mountains to the northwest of Galeem (phonetically approximately [ˈga.ɺeːm]) out beyond the Pealtz (phonetically approximately [pʰɛɑ̯lt͡s], officially called the Pealti [ˈpea̯ɺ.ti] in the dialect of Kaltha [ˈkaɺ.θa]), a region of lower mountains and hills.

I take it that these are words from another language?

Spoiler:

They do have settled agriculture, unlike some of the other mountain tribes which actually are nomadic, although theirs is different in nature to that of Galeem, and they're infamous for putting up an actual (and successful) armed resistance to being conquered by Galeem instead of just running away, which gets them stereotyped similarly to how Romans viewed Germanic tribes or the Imperial Chinese viewed the "raw barbarians". Since they are fairly settled, they have some rudimentary writing, and they have a very elaborate culture in general (which of course all groups do, but in this case it's counter to stereotypes), especially oral and musical culture, although a lot of their genealogies are likely not actually true due to the people who run away from elsewhere to join them (often to escape slavery, other punishment, or economic hardship).

I like the backstory you've provided here.

(I apologize for the awful romanization. I don't think there's any way to make it look much better unfortunately.)

Are you open to suggestions for alternative romanizations? I'd like to give it a shot, but I get the feeling there's a specific kind of aesthetic you're going for that I might not be able to capture.

Stops are also aspirated at the ends of words.

All stops?

Classes: Nouns have 6 classes. I'm really not sure what they're based on but I know exactly which class each noun should go in. When I figure out the rules I'll post them. They're largely semantically based but you also have things like "the Sun is feminine" that probably don't qualify.

I look forward to hearing about the rules for this.

Plurals: Currently there are three plurals, one with a-umlaut on the stem and a velar nasal in some cases, one with a glottal stop and u-umlaut, and one with reduplication of the stem (so you don't have to say compound words twice). The plurals are somehow predictable but I'm not sure what the patterns are. Highly animate nouns generally have one of the first two and very inanimate nouns generally have the reduplication, which forms a collective on highly animate nouns.

I also look forward to hearing about the patterns for this.

Cases: Nouns undergo i-umlaut or a-umlaut in non-nominative cases. The accusative case is just the stem change while the genitive also takes an -s. There is also case stacking.

Are there cases not mentioned here? How is it determined whether a noun undergoes i- or a-umlaut?

The middle voice:

Ditransitives and Applicatives:

Interesting topics. I'm afraid I don't have any specific comments on either of these posts at the moment, though.

[HoskhMatriarch]

Yes, those are words from another language, which doesn't have a name yet but is a common naming language with lots and lots of dialects .

Thanks. This language is for my conworld and that's just what I have about them so far. Since they resist Galeem a lot they get focused on a lot in stories that take place in that part of the world.

Yes, I'm open to that, although I won't necessarily use it. I don't actually think the romanization is horrible now that I've been using it, it's supposed to be a bit quirky like languages that use Latin natively or languages with old romanizations that aren't by field linguists (such as <ch> for /χ/ in Hebrew or <j> for /x/ and <tz> for /t͡s/ in a lot of South American languages, or <kg> for /k͡x/ in some languages in former Dutch colonies or <ß> for /ʃ/ in some language I forgot). I think I need to go back to <ng> for /ŋ/ since one of the most common words is /yŋ/ "over" (because it is how comparatives are formed) which looks ugly as <üń> and change <oœ> to something else (preferably still with <œ> since there's both <ö> and <œ> in Middle High German) but that's it.

Well, not glottal stops or ejectives. I should have said pulmonic stops.

There are no other cases, just nominative, accusative, and genitive (I know, most languages seem to have 0 cases or 14 so that's weird). So far the rule is most nouns ending in front vowels (by "ending in" I mean the last vowel, which is often word-internal) get a-umlaut and words ending in back-vowels (including /a/ even though it's not a back vowel) get i-umlaut but there should probably a few irregular ones among the most commonly-used nouns due to how the patterns developed.

[Frislander]

I know, most languages seem to have 0 cases or 14 so that's weird

No, I have to disagree with you there. Have you seen the WALS map?

[HoskhMatriarch]

I know, most languages seem to have 0 cases or 14 so that's weird

No, I have to disagree with you there. Have you seen the WALS map?

*Most conlangs seem to have 0 or 14. It's still unusual for a natlang to have 3 cases though, even if most natlangs with cases have 6-7 and not 22. Really, coming to the number of cases at 3 was a result of looking at other typological characteristics of the language, and not me trying to pick the weirdest number of cases possible. I had a couple more, then realized I didn't actually need them. People probably should still expect this language to have 14 cases since it's a language with SOV word order and lots of agglutination (I don't call it an "agglutinating language" though because then people go like "well, Turkish does/doesn't do x, so why does your language not do/do x?" which gets annoying. Turkish isn't the only language with long strings of affixes in the world...).

[Keenir]

Maybe also the paucity of details. Really, was just a brief description of phones and a brief listing of categories for one part of speech. Hardly odd and much less well developed.

It's more well-developed than my unnamed click language.

That's like me saying that my Scriptlang is more developed than Apaan - its true, but it doesn't disprove the statement.
:)

Ditransitives and Applicatives:
Ditransitive verbs are handled through double-object constructions.

impressive.

I should probably do the root serialization stuff next since it's probably the only thing I could do that people haven't seen. I was going to do comparatives but that would be better once I have attributive adjectives done, even though I have the comparative construction itself done

if its done, we'd like to see it, please.

[Keenir]

I know, most languages seem to have 0 cases or 14 so that's weird

No, I have to disagree with you there. Have you seen the WALS map?

*Most conlangs seem to have 0 or 14.

and? so? therefore?

It's still unusual for a natlang to have 3 cases though,

not impossible.

even if most natlangs with cases have 6-7 and not 22. Really, coming to the number of cases at 3 was a result of looking at other typological characteristics of the language, and not me trying to pick the weirdest number of cases possible. I had a couple more, then realized I didn't actually need them. People probably should still expect this language to have 14 cases since it's a language with SOV word order and lots of agglutination (I don't call it an "agglutinating language" though because then people assume it should be very similar to Turkish).

um, why would it be assumed to be similar to Turkish? that's not the only agglutinative language - I doubt its even the only SOV agglutinating language.

half that paragraph suddenly appeared between the time I hit Reply and when I hit Submit.

[HoskhMatriarch]

impressive.

I should probably do the root serialization stuff next since it's probably the only thing I could do that people haven't seen. I was going to do comparatives but that would be better once I have attributive adjectives done, even though I have the comparative construction itself done

if its done, we'd like to see it, please.

What's impressive about double-object constructions? They're in English. I guess they're not seen often in conlangs because people are afraid of being too English, or they think you have to have a fixed word order to use them, or they just love dative cases or secondary-object constructions.

OK, I don't have attributive adjectives done, or the proper word to translate superlatives, but here's the general construction.

Comparatives:

Comparatives are formed with the word <üń> "over.

mocqhe-r qh'äul-r üń gqååh
fire-DEF apple\ACC-DEF over red-Ø
"The fire is redder than the apple"

The word <sohpe> "under" can be used for the opposite meaning.

qh'aul-r möcqhe-r sohpa gqååh-fe
apple-DEF fire\ACC-DEF under red-3S.G5
"The apple is less red than the fire"

Both of these can be turned into applicatives. (I don't know the proper gloss for the first one, if anyone does please tell me. It's "over" and not "on top of", but it doesn't necessarily involve motion, like "the picture hangs over the fireplace" or "the clouds hovered over the landscape"). The second one is reduced as an applicative.

mocqhe-r qh'äul-r üń-gqååh
fire-DEF apple\ACC-DEF APPL-red-Ø
"The fire is redder than the apple"

qh'aul-r möcqhe-r sohp-gqååh-fe
apple-DEF fire\ACC-DEF SUBE.APPL-red-3S.G5
"The apple is less red than the fire"

(I'm not sure I should be using the 3rd class as the unmarked one since animals, fire, the weather, etc. tend to go in that. The 4th, 5th, or 6th don't tend to be much better though, so I'm not sure I can move the unmarked agreement to them. All I know is it's not going to be masculine or feminine because more animate classes tend to be marked. Really the least animate class overall is the 6th so maybe that should be unmarked in the singular.)

[Keenir]

impressive.

I should probably do the root serialization stuff next since it's probably the only thing I could do that people haven't seen. I was going to do comparatives but that would be better once I have attributive adjectives done, even though I have the comparative construction itself done

if its done, we'd like to see it, please.

What's impressive about double-object constructions? They're in English.

yeah, so are vowels.

I guess they're not seen often in conlangs because people are afraid of being too English,

or they want to try making something without a double-object.

or they think you have to have a fixed word order to use them, or they just love dative cases or secondary-object constructions.

phrases like that might contribute to peoples' hesitation to comment - phrases like that feel like you're slinging mud or making accusations. yes, we all have things in natlangs and conlangs that we like, but you have a habit of making it sound like others are wrong in/to have their preference.

Comparatives:
Comparatives are formed with the word <üń> "over.

mocqhe-r qh'äul-r üń gqååh
fire-DEF apple\ACC-DEF over red-Ø
"The fire is redder than the apple"

Both of these can be turned into applicatives. (I don't know the proper gloss for the first one, if anyone does please tell me. It's "over" and not "on top of", but it doesn't necessarily involve motion, like "the picture hangs over the fireplace" or "the clouds hovered over the landscape"). The second one is reduced as an applicative.

I would guess "dorsal" or "superior" but those are probably wrong.

[HoskhMatriarch]

[cleared to keep this thread on-topic]

[Keenir]

*snip*

[Keenir]

But the thought of being able to have a post count that consists of nothing but constructive posts still tantalizes me...

feedback. it helps to offer it, as well as to receive it.

or they think you have to have a fixed word order to use them, or they just love dative cases or secondary-object constructions.

phrases like that might contribute to peoples' hesitation to comment - phrases like that feel like you're slinging mud or making accusations. yes, we all have things in natlangs and conlangs that we like, but you have a habit of making it sound like others are wrong in/to have their preference.

Oh, I didn't meant that others are wrong. I can see how what I said sounds like that now.

and knowing is half the battle, and the first step towards improvement - in life and in conlanging.

This is why I don't post here so much anymore. I don't like how I'm seen, and I'm embarrassed of how I acted with just asking 10 questions a day and being irritating in general. I've considered just making a new account on multiple occassions to wipe the slate clean

The way to change minds isn't to disappear or change online names -- its to act better, to let them know that you're doing better now. (see above, about offering feedback)

but now that I've posted this thread I really can't. It would have been better had I not posted this thread and I could have no post history, just post stuff about my conlangs and conworlds and get people interested,

we were interested, and still are.

ask no questions and only give answers...

there's nothing wrong with asking questions.

or they think you have to have a fixed word order to use them, or they just love dative cases or secondary-object constructions.

phrases like that might contribute to peoples' hesitation to comment - phrases like that feel like you're slinging mud or making accusations. yes, we all have things in natlangs and conlangs that we like, but you have a habit of making it sound like others are wrong in/to have their preference.

This is why I don't post here so much anymore, I don't like how people see me here, but people tend to like me on Reddit and Conlang Wikia and other sites, so I post there a lot.

and that's good.
and, at the risk of asking the obvious question, did you talk on reddit and wikia about "other people do this" and "most conlangs are"?

I was considering making a new account and just posting about my languages and conworld and nothing else, and I would have no post history and no one would already think I'm annoying,

you would still be you; a change of name alone wouldn't change that.

but I went through and posted this thread on this account, so alea iacta est.

can we return to discussing Tz'airuch, please?