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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 195
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by WeepingElf » 19 Feb 2019 18:50

holbuzvala wrote:
19 Feb 2019 14:21
Two quick qs:

1. Is the following a reasonable sound change? (Excuse the lack of IPA precision - just looking for a general idea)

hol + do -> honno
I have seen weirder things; so I'd say it is possible.
2. Can anyone point me in the direction of articles dealing with the development of click phonemes? Clickogenesis?
Ah, clickogenesis. It seems to me as if such a process hasn't been observed yet. There are not many languages that have acquired clicks during their reconstructible prehistory: Dahalo (a Cushitic language), and some Bantu languages (such as Xhosa and Zulu). And apparently, there are no regular correspondences between clicks in these languages and whatever in their click-less relatives; it seems as if clicks occur only in loanwords from other languages with clicks, or in words with uncertain etymologies. (But I may have missed something; I am no expert in this.)

This has brought some scholars to the idea that clicks never evolve from anything else, from which they conclude that Proto-Human had clicks and all other languages have lost them. I don't think there's much merit to that idea, though. Just because a particular change has not been observed is no reason to assume that it never happens! I'd personally guess that clicks may evolve from doubly articulated stops involving a velar closure and another closure more forward in the mouth (which are quite common in Africa), which may evolve from clusters, e.g. tk > !. Indeed, I have the idea of an IE language on the back burner where just this happened, such that its words for 'earth' and 'bear', for instance, have clicks.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 312
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 20 Feb 2019 10:56

Apparently (here's the paper), the change mn > mpn in Medieval Latin and some other languages happened because the surrounding consonants produced a bilabial click. The conclusion is that any combination of stops (nasal or oral) where the first is more front than the second can produce an excrescent click through a phase of coarticulation.

So the idea for an Indo-European clicklang is actually rather plausible, and furthermore the clicks would probably keep the original phonation contrast!
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

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 956
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 21 Feb 2019 02:02

holbuzvala wrote:
19 Feb 2019 14:21
Two quick qs:

1. Is the following a reasonable sound change? (Excuse the lack of IPA precision - just looking for a general idea)

hol + do -> honno

2. Can anyone point me in the direction of articles dealing with the development of click phonemes? Clickogenesis?
You could have two sound changes:

ld > nd

and

nd > nn
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
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3108
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 21 Feb 2019 22:58

How can a language go from height harmony to frontness harmony? Are there any specific changes that are needed? For reference, here is my Proto-lang's vowel inventory, arranged in the three heights.:
/i y u/
/e ø o/
/æ œ ɑ/
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3108
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 22 Feb 2019 22:44

Can someone answer my question, please?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 956
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 22 Feb 2019 22:52

Perhaps try umlaut? If a front vowel is in the coda, and a back vowel is in the root, you can say that the back vowel was fronted. Since VHH is already affecting all the vowels unilaterally, this seems like an easy way to switch over to frontness harmony.

Example: pikachu /pikɑtʃu/ -> pykachu /pykɑtʃu/ all become back (assuming /ɑ/ is a neutral vowel, like in many languages.)
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
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3108
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 22 Feb 2019 23:05

Ælfwine wrote:
22 Feb 2019 22:52
Perhaps try umlaut? If a front vowel is in the coda, and a back vowel is in the root, you can say that the back vowel was fronted. Since VHH is already affecting all the vowels unilaterally, this seems like an easy way to switch over to frontness harmony.

Example: pikachu /pikɑtʃu/ -> pykachu /pykɑtʃu/ all become back (assuming /ɑ/ is a neutral vowel, like in many languages.)
/ɑ/ is the "Low" height version of /u/ and /o/. My language is an alt-family that is in the Altaic Sprachbund, and I'm thinking of making a language spoken in Mongolia, with heavy sprachbund effects from OIrat, and other Mongolic languages.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 956
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 22 Feb 2019 23:35

Shemtov wrote:
22 Feb 2019 23:05
Ælfwine wrote:
22 Feb 2019 22:52
Perhaps try umlaut? If a front vowel is in the coda, and a back vowel is in the root, you can say that the back vowel was fronted. Since VHH is already affecting all the vowels unilaterally, this seems like an easy way to switch over to frontness harmony.

Example: pikachu /pikɑtʃu/ -> pykachu /pykɑtʃu/ all become back (assuming /ɑ/ is a neutral vowel, like in many languages.)
/ɑ/ is the "Low" height version of /u/ and /o/. My language is an alt-family that is in the Altaic Sprachbund, and I'm thinking of making a language spoken in Mongolia, with heavy sprachbund effects from OIrat, and other Mongolic languages.
Right. Then you'll want to keep this vowel as is, but if the coda vowel is an /i/, you can change it to /æ/ like in Old Norse.
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.

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 956
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 25 Feb 2019 05:49

My turn.

I want to adopt a loanword into my Crimean Gothic language from Crimean Tatar. However, as it turns out, the loanword in question, dağ, would become virtually identical with an existing Crimean Gothic word, dags (from Proto-Germanic *dagaz).

My question is: would it still be sensible for the language to adopt the word unchanged into the language, despite appearing identical to another commonly used word?

(Edit: Apparently Crimean Gothic also has the word rintsch for "mountain," which is what I wanted Crimean Tatar dağ to mean. Perhaps that means I shouldn't adopt the word anyway.)
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
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2838
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 25 Feb 2019 07:37

Ælfwine wrote:
25 Feb 2019 05:49
My question is: would it still be sensible for the language to adopt the word unchanged into the language, despite appearing identical to another commonly used word?
Sure. If I understand correctly, the basic meanings involved would be "mountain" for the loanword and "day" for the native one. Those aren't usually going to show up in the same context, so I see no conflict.

Ælfwine wrote:(Edit: Apparently Crimean Gothic also has the word rintsch for "mountain," which is what I wanted Crimean Tatar dağ to mean. Perhaps that means I shouldn't adopt the word anyway.)
Well, I mean, already having a word for something is hardly a reason not to replace it. English already had a word for "mountain", but it got a new one from the Normans anyway. If you want to keep both words, but don't want them meaning the same thing, loanwords sometimes take on more specialized meanings in the borrowing language (off the top of my head: Norman mansion = house -> English mansion = large house), so maybe a "dağ" for the Gothic speakers is a particular type of mountain.

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 956
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 25 Feb 2019 07:50

Dormouse559 wrote:
25 Feb 2019 07:37
Ælfwine wrote:
25 Feb 2019 05:49
My question is: would it still be sensible for the language to adopt the word unchanged into the language, despite appearing identical to another commonly used word?
Sure. If I understand correctly, the basic meanings involved would be "mountain" for the loanword and "day" for the native one. Those aren't usually going to show up in the same context, so I see no conflict.

Ælfwine wrote:(Edit: Apparently Crimean Gothic also has the word rintsch for "mountain," which is what I wanted Crimean Tatar dağ to mean. Perhaps that means I shouldn't adopt the word anyway.)
Well, I mean, already having a word for something is hardly a reason not to replace it. English already had a word for "mountain", but it got a new one from the Normans anyway. If you want to keep both words, but don't want them meaning the same thing, loanwords sometimes take on more specialized meanings in the borrowing language (off the top of my head: Norman mansion = house -> English mansion = large house), so maybe a "dağ" for the Gothic speakers is a particular type of mountain.
Ok, thanks Dormouse. Perhaps dag can be the less frequent alternative for rinds < CG rintsch. Furthermore, it'll likely inflect differently than dags < PGmc *dagaz Alternatively, I guess I can start studying geology. [xD]

Edit: I've decided that a dag would refer to a smaller mountain or hill, while rinds refers to a larger mountain.
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.

brblues
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 142
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 15:34

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

Post by brblues » 01 Mar 2019 21:11

Hey guys, I'm currently working on a baseline lang which I then want to put through sound changes, so it won't be that fleshed out, but I do wanna give it some character!

At this stage, I got a very assymetric case system, which is still incomplete, and the "split" is between animate and inanimate nouns. For instance, only animate nouns can currently act as agent, while inanimate agents are put into the instrumental case and followed by a "dummy agent".

Now I want to have converbs because they fit into the language quite well, and to make things more interesting add a switch reference marker to them (i.e. the converb looks different if the subject of the finite verb is different from that of the finite verb at the end of the sentence).

I've thought of multiple possibilities and can't decide, so right now I'm not even sure anymore if I like all or none of them, and would like some input!

1) As converbs are very often derived from case endings, I thought I could use the case endings of the animate nouns for the same-subject (SS) version and the ending of a corresponding or at least similar case from the inanimates as different-subject (DS) marker.

Reasoning would be a bit fuzzy; I just liked the idea of repurposing a distinction already present, and thought that the animate version feels like it has a stronger bond to the subject; kind of esoteric, I know!

2) The most cleancut solution would probably be simply using a dedicated DS marker; I didn't find much on possible sorces, but deriving it from something along the lines of "other" or "else" should work.

3) The third option I thought of was suffixing the demonstrative/personal pronoun. This would have the quirky consequence of the converb agreeing in number with the subject of the finite verb although converbs generally do not agree; it would however actually be the DS marker that agrees and simply glomps onto the converb!

Any opinions from the good people of the CBB (that's all of you!), or should I provide examples still?

belivid
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 4
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 22:32

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

Post by belivid » 01 Mar 2019 22:58

I’m a first-time poster, so I hope I put this in the right place. I would like to create some kind of stem change slash consonant mutation that occurs with certain case marking and in certain verb forms, but I’m not completely sure on how to evolve these from the proto-language. I read “A Typological Overview of Consonant Mutation” by John Merrill, which is a great source, but it didn’t give me everything I need.

The following changes are what I would like to have in the daughter language. They occur on the last consonant or consonant cluster of the stem. (Word-final geminates are allowed, even though they are sometimes levelled out by allophony. A few other word-final consonant clusters are allowed and they always consist of two consonants maximum, the only exception being ɬt, which counts as geminate l plus t.)

- single stops, fricatives, nasals and r geminate
- w > m, j > n or d (or something else if these turn out to be completely impossible)
- l > ɬ (which phonologically counts as geminate l)
- word final h dropped in all instances at some point in history, so I thought I could maybe have -χ as the strong version of vowel final words in the daughter language. E.g. Proto sah vs saχ > daughter language sa vs saχ
- geminate stops would degeminate but leave an extra syllable, something like this: sadd > sajad
- I would like -rr to become -rd and -ll [ɬ] > -llt [ɬt]
- I’m not completely sure on what to do with geminate fricatives and other clusters. Geminate fricatives could maybe break and dissimilate in some way? Coda clusters could maybe just break with an epenthetic vowel.

I’ve found a few possible approaches to the problem, but I don’t know how to fit everything in. I thought I could maybe have a glottal stop as a case ending in the proto-language wherever these changes occur in the daughter language. (The glottal stop no longer is a phoneme in the daughter language.) Then I could have: -Cʔ > -C:. And this seemed plausible to me as well, although I can be completely wrong: saddʔ > sadʔd > sadad > sajad. And are these plausible: -wʔ > m; -jʔ > n/d; -hʔ > -χ ? Coda clusters could maybe do this: -CCʔ > —CʔC > -CVC.

The other thing that comes to mind is to have some sort of reduplication of some part of the stem in the proto-language, which then evolves into what I described above. That seems doable for the gemination, but not for all the other stuff..

Anyway, I appologize for the long post, but I really hope someone is willing to help. I’ve been racking my brain on this for quiet a long time now [:P] And also please excuse my English. I’m not native [:)]

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4517
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 02 Mar 2019 00:14

So I'm going to summarize what I think you asked for. You are asking for a diachronic source for word final consonant mutation that could explain the following changes
  • /w,j/ → /m,n/
  • /l,h/ → /ɬ,x/
  • /rː/ → /rd/
  • /ɬ/ → /lt/
  • /Cː/ → /CaC/
  • any other /C/ → /Cː/
I am not sure how the quality of the first consonant in the mutation is geminates is determined, but I will just ignore that for the moment. Let me reformulate the changes with regards to features.
  • [-nasal,+continuant,+sonorant] → /m,n/
  • [+sonorant] → [-sonorant]
  • [+sonorant,-nasal] → [-sonorant,-continuant]/C_
  • [-sonorant,+continuant,+lateral] → [-sonorant,-continuant,lateral]/C_
  • /Cː/ → /CaC/
  • [-long] → [+long]
So what we see is changes from [+sonorant] to [-sonorant], changes from [+continuant] to [-continuant] and from [-long] to [+long]. These are cases of fortition. We also see [-nasal] becoming [+nasal], which is kind of unrelated.

I think your idea with a glottal stop is okay. Glottal stops can cause and nasalization via rhinoglottophilia and fortitions via assimilation. If they do total assimilation they can also cause lengthening. So /w,j/ → /m,n/, /l,h/ → /ɬ,x/, /rː/ → /rd/, /C/ → /Cː/, and /ɬ/ → /lt/ are definitely okay. I am a bit concerned about the "splitting up" of geminates. You basically posit a change from /ʔ/ to /a/ which I have seen people claim before, yet I do think that's the least naturalistic part of your idea. An alternative could be a suffix -/ʔa/ at the earlier stage that could infix only before geminates (maybe because a /Cːʔ/ is prohibited). The glottal stop could then lenite to /j/. You would only need one additional change. The suffix final /a/ has to be deleted in all other contexts.

I was thinking about other alternatives. For prefixes, the changes that you need are very similar to what you find as a relicts of nasal prefixes in Austronesian languages. So maybe a suffix -/na/ would also work?
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]

belivid
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 4
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 22:32

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

Post by belivid » 02 Mar 2019 12:04

Creyeditor wrote:
02 Mar 2019 00:14
So I'm going to summarize what I think you asked for. You are asking for a diachronic source for word final consonant mutation that could explain the following changes
  • /w,j/ → /m,n/
  • /l,h/ → /ɬ,x/
  • /rː/ → /rd/
  • /ɬ/ → /lt/
  • /Cː/ → /CaC/
  • any other /C/ → /Cː/
I am not sure how the quality of the first consonant in the mutation is geminates is determined, but I will just ignore that for the moment. Let me reformulate the changes with regards to features.
  • [-nasal,+continuant,+sonorant] → /m,n/
  • [+sonorant] → [-sonorant]
  • [+sonorant,-nasal] → [-sonorant,-continuant]/C_
  • [-sonorant,+continuant,+lateral] → [-sonorant,-continuant,lateral]/C_
  • /Cː/ → /CaC/
  • [-long] → [+long]
So what we see is changes from [+sonorant] to [-sonorant], changes from [+continuant] to [-continuant] and from [-long] to [+long]. These are cases of fortition. We also see [-nasal] becoming [+nasal], which is kind of unrelated.

I think your idea with a glottal stop is okay. Glottal stops can cause and nasalization via rhinoglottophilia and fortitions via assimilation. If they do total assimilation they can also cause lengthening. So /w,j/ → /m,n/, /l,h/ → /ɬ,x/, /rː/ → /rd/, /C/ → /Cː/, and /ɬ/ → /lt/ are definitely okay. I am a bit concerned about the "splitting up" of geminates. You basically posit a change from /ʔ/ to /a/ which I have seen people claim before, yet I do think that's the least naturalistic part of your idea. An alternative could be a suffix -/ʔa/ at the earlier stage that could infix only before geminates (maybe because a /Cːʔ/ is prohibited). The glottal stop could then lenite to /j/. You would only need one additional change. The suffix final /a/ has to be deleted in all other contexts.

I was thinking about other alternatives. For prefixes, the changes that you need are very similar to what you find as a relicts of nasal prefixes in Austronesian languages. So maybe a suffix -/na/ would also work?
Wow, thank you very much for your comprehensive response! Summarizing it that way would've made my post a lot shorter, indeed [:D]

I really like the infixation idea! I already have final vowels drop at some stage, so if I lenite the remnant geminate stop to a single stop first, I end up with exactly what I wanted. And I could do something similar with some other suffixes as well. Awesome! [:)] And I'll definitely look up the Austronesian nasal prefixes and see if that gives me some extra inspiration. Thanks!

All right, so maybe I could just go for an epenthetic vowel with other (non-geminate) consonant clusters, because those clusters are prohibited: /CCʔ/ → /CVCʔ/ → /CVC/. Do you think the insertion of the epenthetic vowel could make the glottal stop just disappear, say as some sort of compensatory shortening, instead of having it geminate the second consonant of the cluster as well? So /CCʔ/ → /CVCʔ/ → /CVC/ instead of /CCʔ/ → /CVCʔ/ → /CVC:/.

And then just one final question: I was actually aiming at /ɬ/ → /ɬt/, not /ɬ/ → /lt/. But if I see it as an assimilation of the glottal stop to the lateral fricative, /ɬ/ → /ɬt/ is also fine, right?

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 312
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 02 Mar 2019 12:06

brblues wrote:
01 Mar 2019 21:11
Hey guys, I'm currently working on a baseline lang which I then want to put through sound changes, so it won't be that fleshed out, but I do wanna give it some character!

At this stage, I got a very assymetric case system, which is still incomplete, and the "split" is between animate and inanimate nouns. For instance, only animate nouns can currently act as agent, while inanimate agents are put into the instrumental case and followed by a "dummy agent".

Now I want to have converbs because they fit into the language quite well, and to make things more interesting add a switch reference marker to them (i.e. the converb looks different if the subject of the finite verb is different from that of the finite verb at the end of the sentence).

I've thought of multiple possibilities and can't decide, so right now I'm not even sure anymore if I like all or none of them, and would like some input!

1) As converbs are very often derived from case endings, I thought I could use the case endings of the animate nouns for the same-subject (SS) version and the ending of a corresponding or at least similar case from the inanimates as different-subject (DS) marker.

Reasoning would be a bit fuzzy; I just liked the idea of repurposing a distinction already present, and thought that the animate version feels like it has a stronger bond to the subject; kind of esoteric, I know!

2) The most cleancut solution would probably be simply using a dedicated DS marker; I didn't find much on possible sorces, but deriving it from something along the lines of "other" or "else" should work.

3) The third option I thought of was suffixing the demonstrative/personal pronoun. This would have the quirky consequence of the converb agreeing in number with the subject of the finite verb although converbs generally do not agree; it would however actually be the DS marker that agrees and simply glomps onto the converb!

Any opinions from the good people of the CBB (that's all of you!), or should I provide examples still?
All three options are interesting, especially the third, but I think it would easily develop into a finite form, some sort of subordinate mood (it reminds me more of the Portuguese personal infinitive than a typical converb) so if you want converbs pure and simple it's probably best avoided. Of the other two options, I don't know enough about origins of switch reference to make a judgment, but using animate and inanimate case suffixes for that seems plausible on a glance.

Converbs are generally frozen adverbial case forms of verbal nouns (I've read a paper about this which dealt with this specifically, but I've forgotten wher I had found it), so if you have possessive suffixes of following possessive/demonstrative pronouns, you could introduce some switch reference by a way of, e.g. :

"after this one's doing" > same subject
"after that one's doing" > different subject

(or you could use reflexive pronouns for same subject and demonstrative for different subject)
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

brblues
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 142
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 15:34

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

Post by brblues » 03 Mar 2019 15:26

Zekoslav wrote:
02 Mar 2019 12:06
All three options are interesting, especially the third, but I think it would easily develop into a finite form, some sort of subordinate mood (it reminds me more of the Portuguese personal infinitive than a typical converb) so if you want converbs pure and simple it's probably best avoided. Of the other two options, I don't know enough about origins of switch reference to make a judgment, but using animate and inanimate case suffixes for that seems plausible on a glance.

Converbs are generally frozen adverbial case forms of verbal nouns (I've read a paper about this which dealt with this specifically, but I've forgotten wher I had found it), so if you have possessive suffixes of following possessive/demonstrative pronouns, you could introduce some switch reference by a way of, e.g. :

"after this one's doing" > same subject
"after that one's doing" > different subject

(or you could use reflexive pronouns for same subject and demonstrative for different subject)
Thanks for the reply! I am glad that all three options seem feasible at least superficially, cause then I could do what would be my preferred solution, namely using all three :D It wouldn't be any problem at all if some of the resulting forms aren't converbs but something different. I will also keep your suggestion in mind, which sounds very logical and straightforward.

I will post the final result once I get there...

I caught out another problem already - I had wanted to use the stem form by deleting the verbal ending, but because this ending is the only thing "verbalising" the noun (I have derived three basic verb endings from three dummy verbs), I would end up with identical noun and converb forms if I straight up borrow the case endings for the converb forms. I guess I will therefore add the converb suffix to the verb form including the infinitive ending.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4517
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 03 Mar 2019 16:56

belivid wrote:
02 Mar 2019 12:04
All right, so maybe I could just go for an epenthetic vowel with other (non-geminate) consonant clusters, because those clusters are prohibited: /CCʔ/ → /CVCʔ/ → /CVC/. Do you think the insertion of the epenthetic vowel could make the glottal stop just disappear, say as some sort of compensatory shortening, instead of having it geminate the second consonant of the cluster as well? So /CCʔ/ → /CVCʔ/ → /CVC/ instead of /CCʔ/ → /CVCʔ/ → /CVC:/.
And then just one final question: I was actually aiming at /ɬ/ → /ɬt/, not /ɬ/ → /lt/. But if I see it as an assimilation of the glottal stop to the lateral fricative, /ɬ/ → /ɬt/ is also fine, right?
Regarding your first question. I think the order of sound changes matters here. If you order lengthening before vowel epenthesis, you can derive the shortening. The only thing you have to assume is the early deletion of the glottal stop after word final geminates.

Proto forms: /VCCʔ#/,/VCʔ#/
1. Glottal stop deletion (ʔ→∅/CC_#): /VCC#/,/VCʔ#/
2. Vowel epenthesis (∅→a/C_C#): /VCVC#/,/VCʔ#/
3. Total assimlation of glottal stop (ʔ→C/C_): /VCVC#/,/VCC#/

I am not sure if this makes a whole lot of sens, though. I kind of have a headache today.

Regarding your second question: of course. That makes sense.
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]

User avatar
Inkcube-Revolver
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 163
Joined: 05 Nov 2015 23:20
Location: Miami, FL

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

Post by Inkcube-Revolver » 04 Mar 2019 10:38

Hey, guys, I have a query that's been bugging me for a really long time. I've been trying to figure out how to go about forming pronouns, demonstratives, and determiners from a specific source or set of words, and I've been doing a lot of digging online for months with little to no results. Like, how do words like "this," "that," "I," "you," and "we" arise? This may seem rudimentary or like a needlessly complicated mental exercise, but these terms are so basic and fundamental to language that it always bothers me to just come up with random words for these, and it's always these words for some reason. Farting out the rest of my vocabulary is not an issue, it's usually pretty fun, but I tend to place a lot of significance and importance on the shape of a pronoun, like it has to sound "right," and I find myself leaving pronouns and determiners for last when making a sketchlang or full-on conlang.

I know that Japanese and the Chinese languages present interesting etymologies for their pronouns, like how proto-words roughly meaning "side" or "off to the side" eventually became all sorts of pronouns, and I've been having trouble forming a semantic path like that to come up with more pronouns unique to my conlangs. What would make the most sense for a word or phrase to evolve into a word so semantically bleached like "this" ?

Third person pronouns seem to have the tendency to come from determiners and demonstratives, especially if you look at PIE and it's various descendants. A related issue is how do determiners and demonstratives become so, like what word or concept would evolve to become the words for "this" and "that" and all the other words in those categories?

I know this is an issue of falling too deep into the rabbit hole (because I've fallen and I can't get up) in regards to proto-langs and "Why are words shaped this way?" and "But now where does that word/meaning come from?" because at some point, a word just means what it means. In the end, a tree is just a tree. If there is a solution to this super-abstract problem that our ancestors were able to solve by having these words to begin with, I gotta know. I also have this issue with some other basic vocabulary, like "water," "hand," "eye," "night," and "woman," but those are sometimes easier for me to handwave an etymology for. This very specific issue is the bane of my existence as a conlanger and I just wanna be happy, ok?

TLDR: Where do pronouns, demonstratives and determiners get their meaning from, and how do they arise? I just want to find a way to break down how a distinction could arise for how "you are you and not me," preferrably a naturalistic one if possible. If anyone has a link that answers this question if it's been asked before, that'd be super helpful so I can bookmark it forever. If there's no answer to my question, I can finally stop screaming into the night and move on with my life, lol.
I like my languages how I like my women: grammatically complex with various moods and tenses, a thin line between nouns and verbs, and dozens upon dozens of possible conjugations for every single verb.

belivid
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 4
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 22:32

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

Post by belivid » 04 Mar 2019 12:28

Creyeditor wrote:
03 Mar 2019 16:56
belivid wrote:
02 Mar 2019 12:04
All right, so maybe I could just go for an epenthetic vowel with other (non-geminate) consonant clusters, because those clusters are prohibited: /CCʔ/ → /CVCʔ/ → /CVC/. Do you think the insertion of the epenthetic vowel could make the glottal stop just disappear, say as some sort of compensatory shortening, instead of having it geminate the second consonant of the cluster as well? So /CCʔ/ → /CVCʔ/ → /CVC/ instead of /CCʔ/ → /CVCʔ/ → /CVC:/.
And then just one final question: I was actually aiming at /ɬ/ → /ɬt/, not /ɬ/ → /lt/. But if I see it as an assimilation of the glottal stop to the lateral fricative, /ɬ/ → /ɬt/ is also fine, right?
Regarding your first question. I think the order of sound changes matters here. If you order lengthening before vowel epenthesis, you can derive the shortening. The only thing you have to assume is the early deletion of the glottal stop after word final geminates.

Proto forms: /VCCʔ#/,/VCʔ#/
1. Glottal stop deletion (ʔ→∅/CC_#): /VCC#/,/VCʔ#/
2. Vowel epenthesis (∅→a/C_C#): /VCVC#/,/VCʔ#/
3. Total assimlation of glottal stop (ʔ→C/C_): /VCVC#/,/VCC#/

I am not sure if this makes a whole lot of sens, though. I kind of have a headache today.

Regarding your second question: of course. That makes sense.
Hm, but then wouldn't I lose the consonant gradation for those stems ending in -/VCC/? Because, if the glottal stop is deleted first, words without the -/ʔa/ ending will also get the epenthetic vowel and therefore both /VCC#/ and /VCCʔ#/ become /VCVC#/. But I would like them to become /VCC#/ vs /VCVC#/..
I'm probably missing a step somewhere, but I can't get my head around it..

Post Reply