Yay or Nay?

[shimobaatar]

(Post #9999.)

I'm currently working on figuring out the grade levels in which Ởnh·Vú speakers learn different characters and i've run into a bit of a conundrum. Typically I base them off the Chinese and Japanese grades the characters are learned in but I'm not sure what to do about the character 銀. In Chinese its learned in 4th grade while in Japan its learned in 3rd. However in Ởnh·Vú, its only used in the words 銀行 (bank) and 水銀 (mercury). Given that bank is a pretty common word, would it be too much to include this character as one learned in 5th grade, or should I hold it back until later?

I think you should be fine having this character learned later on, relatively speaking, especially if only two words in the entire language are written with it. Also, while "bank" is a common word for people in general, I think it should be taken into consideration how often children would need to write it.

[k1234567890y]

I'm currently working on figuring out the grade levels in which Ởnh·Vú speakers learn different characters and i've run into a bit of a conundrum. Typically I base them off the Chinese and Japanese grades the characters are learned in but I'm not sure what to do about the character 銀. In Chinese its learned in 4th grade while in Japan its learned in 3rd. However in Ởnh·Vú, its only used in the words 銀行 (bank) and 水銀 (mercury). Given that bank is a pretty common word, would it be too much to include this character as one learned in 5th grade, or should I hold it back until later?

another choice: list it as a common character but not taught at element schools.

(Post #9999.)

I'm currently working on figuring out the grade levels in which Ởnh·Vú speakers learn different characters and i've run into a bit of a conundrum. Typically I base them off the Chinese and Japanese grades the characters are learned in but I'm not sure what to do about the character 銀. In Chinese its learned in 4th grade while in Japan its learned in 3rd. However in Ởnh·Vú, its only used in the words 銀行 (bank) and 水銀 (mercury). Given that bank is a pretty common word, would it be too much to include this character as one learned in 5th grade, or should I hold it back until later?

I think you should be fine having this character learned later on, relatively speaking, especially if only two words in the entire language are written with it. Also, while "bank" is a common word for people in general, I think it should be taken into consideration how often children would need to write it.

10,000 posts! congrats, 霜勇者

[ixals]

I know nothing about how Chinese characters are learnt, but how do speakers learn characters that aren't taught in school (I assume not every character can be taught in school)?

Concerning Ởnh·Vú: Does 銀 even need to be learnt in (primary) school? Adults probably talk enough about going to the bank and banks have a big flashing "銀行" above their entrance, children can put one and one together, right? In the end it's a combination of 金 and 艮, which children will learn how to write earlier (I assume again because they look quite easy). Also 行 is probably learnt earlier than 銀 as well, right? So children would have all they need for this character I guess?

[k1234567890y]

I know nothing about how Chinese characters are learnt, but how do speakers learn characters that aren't taught in school (I assume not every character can be taught in school)?

Concerning Ởnh·Vú: Does 銀 even need to be learnt in (primary) school? Adults probably talk enough about going to the bank and banks have a big flashing "銀行" above their entrance, children can put one and one together, right? In the end it's a combination of 金 and 艮, which children will learn how to write earlier (I assume again because they look quite easy). Also 行 is probably learnt earlier than 銀 as well, right? So children would have all they need for this character I guess?

not every character nneds to be taught, but usually students need to learn a sufficient amount of them, having a concept of reading and writing I think

students usually learn how to express their speech with certain phonemic spellings(which are never used as a major way to write in Chinese-speaking areas, but is used along with the logograms in Japanese-speaking areas. In Chinese-speaking areas, the phonemic writings are only used as an assistance for children to initiate the learning of reading) before starting to learn the logographic characters.

first children learn phonemic spellings, then they learn the logographic characters marked with how they are pronounced and how to associate the characters with their meanings.

maybe my explanation is not good enough though

[All4Ɇn]

Thanks for the replies everyone! You’ve all brought up some great points :). As someone who doesn’t speak Chinese and has only been studying Japanese for two years, and has had absolutely no experience in either country’s school systems, it can be really difficult judging how something like this issue would unfold in those countries. I have to say, creating Ởnh·Vú has been a far more amazing way to learn about East Asian cultures than I ever would have expected. It’s strengthened my love for conlanging in a way I didn’t see coming.

[Dormouse559]

I have to say, creating Ởnh·Vú has been a far more amazing way to learn about East Asian cultures than I ever would have expected. It’s strengthened my love for conlanging in a way I didn’t see coming.

So gratifying to hear that. The opportunity to learn about natlangs and -cultures is one of the most worthwhile aspects of a posteriori conlanging.

[Keenir2]

I'm mutating all <th>s [T]s in my Faux Greek&Anatolian into <t>s [t]s...and I was contemplating turning all <pn>s* and <pt>s into <t>s as well.

(or should I turn <pn> and <pt> into <th> [T] instead?)

thank you.



* = I got the <pn>s from Carian, not Greek...names like <Pneith>

[Ælfwine]

I'm mutating all <th>s [T]s in my Faux Greek&Anatolian into <t>s [t]s...and I was contemplating turning all <pn>s* and <pt>s into <t>s as well.

(or should I turn <pn> and <pt> into <th> [T] instead?)

thank you.



* = I got the <pn>s from Carian, not Greek...names like <Pneith>

Maybe you could get [θ] from [pt] through a stage like [pt] -> [ft] -> [ʰt] -> [θ], otherwise I would not overload the language with [t]s.

[tseren]

I'm spirantizing intervocalically, but [θ] needs to go. How? The second is tempting because fewer consonants drop out, but is it as weirdly unnatural as I think it is?

Geminates are shortening with compensatory lengthening of the previous vowel as usual.

t tt → θ t → h t → ∅ t / V_V
s ss → h s → ∅ s / V_V

or

t tt → θ t → s t / V_V
s ss → r ss / V_V

[shimobaatar]

but [θ] needs to go.

Alas…

t tt → θ t → h t → ∅ t / V_V
s ss → h s → ∅ s / V_V

No problems here. θ (> s) > h > Ø is totally reasonable, if you ask me.

t tt → θ t → s t / V_V
s ss → r ss / V_V

s (> z) > r doesn't feel weird to me either, especially not intervocalically.

I think that ss would be likely to shorten, especially since s no longer exists intervocalically, and tt shortens. However, I don't think it's too glaringly unnatural to leave it as a geminate, and there's probably some natlang precedent out there that I don't know about.

[Keenir2]

I'm spirantizing intervocalically, but [θ] needs to go. How? The second is tempting because fewer consonants drop out, but is it as weirdly unnatural as I think it is?

t tt → θ t → h t → ∅ t / V_V
s ss → h s → ∅ s / V_V

or

t tt → θ t → s t / V_V
s ss → r ss / V_V[/quote]

if I'm reading these right...
tott -> thot ->hot -> ot
vs
tott -> thot -> sot

soss -> hos -> os
vs
soss -> ross

my first thought is that I like the second row's second option (maybe end with ros instead of ross?), but the first option for the first row (good ol ot )....but if its a package deal, then the second set (sot and ross, though I stand by my suggestion of ros)

hope that helps at least a little

* = I got the <pn>s from Carian, not Greek...names like <Pneith>

Maybe you could get [θ] from [pt] through a stage like [pt] -> [ft] -> [ʰt] -> [θ], otherwise I would not overload the language with [t]s.

makes sense; don't want to have too many phrases like "Praise Te Great TeoTanatos Teit!" :)


seriously, thank you.


(from theo-thanatos = god-death)

[shimobaatar]

if I'm reading these right...
tott -> thot ->hot -> ot
vs
tott -> thot -> sot

soss -> hos -> os
vs
soss -> ross

Aren't the changes just intervocalic, though?

[k1234567890y]

In respect of morphosyntax...I guess I need to try an open pronominal system based on social relationship and something like, as in Japanese, Korean and Southeast Asian languages...

[shimobaatar]

In respect of morphosyntax...I guess I need to try an open pronominal system based on social relationship and something like, as in Japanese, Korean and Southeast Asian languages...

If you're only considering this because you feel like you need to, then I'd recommend not doing it. But if you genuinely want to do it, then go for it!

[tseren]

but [θ] needs to go.

Alas…

t tt → θ t → h t → ∅ t / V_V
s ss → h s → ∅ s / V_V

No problems here. θ (> s) > h > Ø is totally reasonable, if you ask me.

t tt → θ t → s t / V_V
s ss → r ss / V_V

s (> z) > r doesn't feel weird to me either, especially not intervocalically.

I think that ss would be likely to shorten, especially since s no longer exists intervocalically, and tt shortens. However, I don't think it's too glaringly unnatural to leave it as a geminate, and there's probably some natlang precedent out there that I don't know about.

I know that the first set, with t → ∅, is the tried and true. My worry with option 2 is that an intervocalic t → θ → s doesn't seem to have any natlang precedent I can find. That worries me for some reason. It makes me think my logic is off. Still, it's tempting to not throw out so many consonants. Some homophones are fine, but I don't want a language of them.

You're right about the geminate ss. I'm considering reversing the order on that one to leave s from t,
s ss → r ss / V_V
t tt → θ t → s t / V_V

[shimobaatar]

I know that the first set, with t → ∅, is the tried and true. My worry with option 2 is that an intervocalic t → θ → s doesn't seem to have any natlang precedent I can find. That worries me for some reason. It makes me think my logic is off. Still, it's tempting to not throw out so many consonants. Some homophones are fine, but I don't want a language of them.

Well, t → θ is attested intervocalically, right? And θ → s isn't unusual in any position, I'd say. I don't think you have anything to worry about on that front.

[yangfiretiger121]

[ls sl → rs sr → ʂ͡ɽ]
[lz zl → rz zr → ʐ͡ɽ]

[k1234567890y]

I think to introduce preposition stranding to Town Speech-Plattdytch, should I?

[ls sl → rs sr → ʂ͡ɽ]
[lz zl → rz zr → ʐ͡ɽ]

maybe yes?

[Ælfwine]

[ls sl → rs sr → ʂ͡ɽ]
[lz zl → rz zr → ʐ͡ɽ]

I feel like [ɽʂ] and [ɽʐ] iss more likely. Faroese retroflexes its consonants similarly, where [ɹ] becomes [ɻ] and retroflexes a following consonant as well.

[Zekoslav]

Yesterday, while researching Indo-European, I decided to rethink the way that Pinault's law and laryngeal vocalization will interact in Tewanian.

At first, I thought I simply wouldn't include Pinault's law in my conlang since it shows multiple exceptions in Greek and Latin. Later, I found out that these apparent exceptions could be explained through analogical leveling - apparently, in verbs, the reflex of vocalized laryngeals (*e, *a*, *o in Greek, *a in Latin) was reintroduced before the suffix *-ye- through analogy with forms derived by other consonantal suffixed such as *-tro-.

I had decided that in Tewanian the result of laryngeal vocalization would be /i(ː)/ before PIE. *y and /a(ː)/ otherwise, which would result in these verbs joining the "i-conjugation":


PIE. *stenh2yeti "it thunders", *stenh2dhlom "thunder" > PTw. *steni(ˑ)yeti, *stenadlun


However, with the new understanding of Pinault's law, it is possible (maybe even probable) that the analogical leveling takes place after the vocalized laryngeal had already become /a(ː)/:


PIE. *stenh2yeti, *stenh2dhlom > post-PIE. *stenyeti, *stenadhlom > PTw. *stenayeti, *stenadlun


This would result in these verbs joining the "a-conjugation", which is what they did in Latin, and Proto-Tewanian would loose a bit of it's uniqueness - it is still possible to have these verbs join the "i-conjugation", but that would require 1. a very early reintoduction of the vocalized laryngeal before the suffix *-ye- and 2. multiple rounds of analogical leveling between different verb stems, namely the present and the participle, and I don't like this analogical ping-pong :


*stenh2yeti, *stenh2to- > *stenyeti, *stenəto- > *stenəyeti, *stenəto- (participle influences present) > *steniyeti, *stenəto- > *steniyeti, *stenito- (present influences participle)


What should I do?