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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 957
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 07 Jul 2019 15:45

Zekoslav wrote:
05 Jul 2019 09:59
I had an idea about a Romance language with a robust case system, while still being descended from Vulgar Latin, and I've come up with this:

1. Existing Romance languages have either nominative - accusative (Old French, Old Occitan) or nominative/accusative - genitive/dative (Romanian).

2. The different pattern of merger is likely due to sound changes: in Old French and Old Occitan the deletion of final vowels obliterates the distinction between the accusative and the dative, in Romanian the deletion of final /s/ obliterates the distinction between the nominative and the accusative. All languages merge the genitive and the dative (e.g. French lui - leur, Italian lui - loro with the singular from the dative and the plural from the genitive).

3. If we delete neither final vowels nor final /s/ we can keep the nominative (< nom, voc), the accusative (< acc, abl) and the dative cases (< dat, gen) separate. However, unless we give more use to the dative it would likely merge with the accusative anyways into a general oblique case. Is a creation of more prepositions like gratia, causa, which would go with the dative, likely?

4. Apparently there's an first declension genitive singular ending -AES attested in inscriptions which didn't survive anywhere in romance, probable created by analogy with the third declension genitive singular ending -IS, but some suspect Greek influence. If we keep it we may innovate a new genitive (more properly possessive) case by adding a final -s to the dative case. I imagine the language being spoken somewhere near the Black Sea (maybe even a *sigh* Crimean Romance language) so Greek or Gothic influence could help in preserving this otherwise lost feature.

5. So we'd have (in classical orthography), basically:

N -us A -um, G -īs, D -ī, n -ī, a -ōs, g/d -ōrum

N -a, A -am, G -aes, D -ae, n -ae, a -ās, g/d -ārum

(The genitive/dative endings in these declensions come from Latin genitive endings)

Do you like it? [:D]
You may want to look at Clio's post towards the bottom of this page:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4173&start=8100

Playing around with it I found that case was left more or less functionally in tact, although case in the feminine gender still likes to merge, so does the genitive with the dative
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.

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 216
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 07 Jul 2019 20:18

Any idea for interesting sound changes for geminate /h/ intervocalically? VhhV>?

The rest of the inventory is currently: C= /p t k t͡s s h ç j ɸ w ɬ l r r̥ ɣ m n ŋ/; V= /a i u ai au/

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 957
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 07 Jul 2019 20:43

My Crimean Gothic eliminates /h/ everywhere, except where germinates it before /j/, when then it lost and subsequently degeminated. You could also easily fortify it to /x/ (which is what I did, though arguably it was always /x/).
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.

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

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

Post by Sumelic » 08 Jul 2019 00:53

holbuzvala wrote:
07 Jul 2019 20:18
Any idea for interesting sound changes for geminate /h/ intervocalically? VhhV>?

The rest of the inventory is currently: C= /p t k t͡s s h ç j ɸ w ɬ l r r̥ ɣ m n ŋ/; V= /a i u ai au/
Do you know the historical source of singleton [h]? It seems that often, languages have a sound that develops to [h] when singleton but not when geminate, which synchronically ends up making it look like [h] turns to something else when it's geminated. E.g. in Japanese, [h] is though to come from original *p, and that still shows up in certain words with geminate [p.p] related to words with singleton [h]. (Japanese does also have actual geminate [h.h] in recently adapted foreign vocabulary.) Hungarian [h], which diachronically developed from *k, corresponds synchronically to geminate [xː]. I'm not actually familiar with a language that started out with geminate [hː] and then turned it into something else, though. I know standard Arabic has geminate [hː], but I'm not sure whether there is any dialect that replaces it with something else.

Nloki
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 59
Joined: 15 Dec 2018 16:01

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

Post by Nloki » 09 Jul 2019 09:13

Vlürch wrote:
01 Jul 2019 19:51
Nloki wrote:
23 Jun 2019 14:33
With this I don't mean that I'm used to compare myself with Tolkien (since doing so would be at least one of the worst sins in conlanging history (even if no one could know)), not at all, but rather that the perfection of his languages inhibits me from creating other things.
Hopefully I won't sound like an asshole, and if I do, I promise that's not my intention.

Why would you not want to strive to be as good as the best? And why would the knowledge that you probably won't make anything as good as them make you feel depressed rather than motivated to get better? Don't you get a boost when you spot things in your conlangs that you could've done better, either more like Tolkien or in a different way that he may not have even considered?

Because for me conlanging isn't as big a passion, I'll make an analogy with music: realistically speaking, I fully realise that I'll never make anything that's as good as anything my favourite bands have done (especially since I'm just one guy making shit in his bedroom, so my abilities and resources are limited compared to theirs), but when I'm working on music, the obvious goal is to make something that sounds as good as the best. Of course I acknowledge that nothing I throw together on my laptop is going to come even close to the work of bands like Dir en grey, Behemoth, Deathspell Omega, Acid Bath, Swans, the Beatles, etc. but why should that be a reason to give up? If anything, it's a surge of motivation when I listen to an album I just finished and think "well, yeah, this is literal shit compared to the glorious masterpieces by all those great bands" because then I notice things that I could've done better.

There's a parallel in conlanging and music that there are more possibilities now than there were in the past, even if there's arguably less room for true innovation. If you think about it, what stopped Tolkien from making a language with clicks and OSV word order or the Beatles from making an album with heavily distorted and dissonant wall-of-noise guitars and autotune? In theory nothing, but they'd have had to innovate (or explore) more. Does the fact that Tolkien never made a conlang with clicks and OSV word order or the fact that the Beatles never made an album with heavily distorted and dissonant wall-of-noise guitars and autotune mean clicks and OSV word order and heavily distorted and dissonant wall-of-noise guitars and autotune should be avoided by conlangers and musicians today? Of course not.

I mean, consider this: what if one day you had a lightbulb moment on how to make the perfect Tolkienesque language, so you promptly made the perfect Tolkienesque language and posted it online? What do you think people would say? "Oh wow, this conlang is super Tolkien!" or something? But would that be a good thing? I mean, of course it'd make you feel good to be compared to someone you look up to, but is that all you really want? Like, it's of course fine if you only want to do the Tolkien, but you can't force yourself to become universally recognised as the next Tolkien because Tolkien didn't make "Tolkienesque conlangs"; he innovated his own style that had a huge impact on conlanging as a whole, just like the Beatles innovated their own style that had a huge impact on music as a whole.

Shouldn't it be more about doing what makes you happy, and maybe trying out new things, than just limiting yourself to a framework that was never really a thing in the first place? Tolkien's style of conlanging and the Beatles' style of music were evolving until the end, and there was no limited pattern or formula to the evolution; it was the result of experimentation, and getting stuck on the Tolkien formula or the Beatles formula, which later conlangers and bands developed through analysis of the work of the aforementioned masters, is only restrictive.

What I mean is that if Tolkien hadn't died when he died and the Beatles hadn't broken up when they broke up, the formulas for Tolkienesque conlangs and Beatles-esque music would almost certainly be different. Kind of like how Proto-Turkic would be reconstructed differently if it wasn't for Chuvash or Proto-Indo-European without Tocharian. So if you have at least an inner desire and drive to become the next Tolkien (and why wouldn't you, even if you accept that you never really will?), why would you restrict yourself to the restrictive Tolkien formula invented by later conlangers instead of exploring the possibilities of conlanging like Tolkien did?
Thank you for your extensive answer Vlürch. Of course you don't sound like that at all (people who help aren't intended to be called so, are they?). But the problem seems to be kind of difficult to understand (even for me).

Maybe I'm contradicting myself right now according to what I previously said, but the main problems don't concern grammar. I kind of know what I want my conlang to be like in terms of grammar, but I want it to be as a prioristic as possible and I don't know how to manage to coin basic roots or stems. Seriously, not even derivation yet. Coining stems. And that's supposed to be somehow the easy part, but it's not (at least not for me).

Regarding this matter Tolkien said his (elvish) languages to have been designed with the purpose of being as beautiful as they could have been according to his phonoaesthetic taste. And I think that's what I lack: phonoaesthetic taste! (or however it could be called like). I cannot discern among lot's of different roots that could be assigned to an only meaning and I just use logical strategies to choose whether a word should be included or not. For example; nēr for "man". But then I realise Quenya already uses nér (ner-) for "man"! So I start trying to coin some monosyllabic words that could fit the purpose and I find out - I don't like any of them! (Happens always the same way) so I give up for a while just to try again and achieve doing nothing.

And that situation has been repeating nearly for a year now. It's kind of desperating, so I've started thinking; maybe I'm not able to create languages at all. I also don't want to be recognized in any way for conlanging (since it's one of my hobbies which I suck the most at), in fact some people here might have noticed that I sometimes delete whole of my posts in a topic of mine (I don't know if it was Nlokian 3 or 4).
It's always the same way; the more I learn or acknowledge, the less I success on something. It's sort of upside down but it's what most of my hobbies end up being: an endless hell.

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

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

Post by Keenir » 09 Jul 2019 11:13

Nloki wrote:
09 Jul 2019 09:13
Regarding this matter Tolkien said his (elvish) languages to have been designed with the purpose of being as beautiful as they could have been according to his phonoaesthetic taste. And I think that's what I lack: phonoaesthetic taste! (or however it could be called like). I cannot discern among lot's of different roots that could be assigned to an only meaning
ah...that was difficult to me as well (and it still is)...phonoasthetic taste is the question "do I like how this sounds? do I like saying this word?"

at least, thats how I've come to understand it best and most usefully for me.
and I just use logical strategies to choose whether a word should be included or not. For example; nēr for "man". But then I realise Quenya already uses nér (ner-) for "man"!
so? English uses no and Japanese uses noh...phonetic coincidences happen, both in natlangs and conlangs. Tolkien's estate isn't going to hunt you down for a coincidence.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

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

Post by Vlürch » 09 Jul 2019 13:08

Nloki wrote:
09 Jul 2019 09:13
Maybe I'm contradicting myself right now according to what I previously said, but the main problems don't concern grammar. I kind of know what I want my conlang to be like in terms of grammar, but I want it to be as a prioristic as possible
I can definitely understand wanting your conlangs to be "as a prioristic as possible", and that's why I've sometimes changed words or morphemes or bits of grammar in mine to ones I didn't like as much when I realised the ones I liked more were "too similar" to things in natlangs or other conlangs, but as hard as it is to force yourself not to do that after the realisation has hit you, why should that be the solution? I mean, where do you draw the line? It's the same in music: sometimes I come up with a great riff or some really cool lyrics, and then, sometimes only after finishing the song, I realise it's a subconscious rip-off of something. However, this is where you have to ask yourself: is anything truly original? If not, what counts as original enough?

The way I see it, while there can still be innovation in every creative field, it's becoming increasingly difficult to invent (or discover) new things or even combine things in an original way because so much has already been made and there are more and more people in every creative field... but more importantly, you're more and more likely to know those other people have already done what you thought was so original. I'll again use an analogy with music: when I started out making stuff that combines cybergrind/goregrind, synthcore/deathcore and deathstep/brostep, I didn't know of any other artists doing the exact same thing and it was even called unique and original by some people... but there were artists doing it years before me (literally before those genres became well-defined), and better than me. I could swear I tried my hardest to find artists who'd done it before, but I couldn't find any. Now it takes two seconds on Google to find them. Why? I have no idea. Maybe I just sucked at googling back then, or maybe Google's algorithms have gotten better. But that doesn't matter, it's good that I didn't know others had done it because if I had known, I may not have done it myself.

It's the same with conlanging: there are different types of languages you can mix the features of, but at the end of the day all of them have probably already been mixed one way or another long before you thought about it... but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it or that your conlang won't be unique. You could even make the most run-of-the-mill Romlang but it'd still be unique, as it would be your take on what a run-of-the-mill Romlang is; it would be compared to the countless other run-of-the-mill Romlangs out there and people would probably say "it's too similar to Romlang X and Romlang Y", but there would be at least one feature that differed from all the other Romlangs. That's comparable to different artists/bands in the same genre.

Let's switch the analogy to black metal for it to be more accurate. Black metal has been done to death and back, but does that stop 666 new black metal albums from being released every single day? Of course not, because people who like black metal don't care that 99% of it is technically speaking the exact same thing; in fact, there are people who think that doing anything new in black metal is bad. And the argument makes sense: there's a working formula for black metal, so why do anything differently? Of course that doesn't stop people from making black metal that isn't like the other 99% of black metal, and I think that's a good thing. But sometimes I like to listen to the most run-of-the-mill black metal out there, and I'm glad people still make it because there's always something different when different artists/bands do it, no matter how minor the difference is.

Again, the same applies to conlangs. Again, there are countless Romlangs, some of them practically indistinguishable from one another, but each of them still has something that differentiates them from all the others. If that can be accomplished with Romlangs, you really shouldn't have to worry about your a priori conlang being too similar to other languages. Nothing is ever 100% original, but literally everything you do will always have your own "touch" to it.
Nloki wrote:
09 Jul 2019 09:13
I don't know how to manage to coin basic roots or stems. Seriously, not even derivation yet. Coining stems. And that's supposed to be somehow the easy part, but it's not (at least not for me).
That's actually one of my biggest problems (or sources of procrastination) too, so you're not alone. Have you tried just making a long list of meaningless mono- and bisyllabic words and then assigning them meanings from a randomly generated long list of words? Some may call it cheating, but in metal that's also what some people say about drum programming, inhaled high screams and tons of other things. Point is, who cares as long as it works? Anyone who cares isn't someone you should take seriously on that issue if you disagree with what they're saying.
Nloki wrote:
09 Jul 2019 09:13
And I think that's what I lack: phonoaesthetic taste! (or however it could be called like).
I doubt you lack it. Isn't it more likely that you just have more than one taste? That's perfectly fine (and normal), anyway. Who really only likes Tolkienesque fantasylangs and whatnot? I'm sure they exist, just like people who only listen to the most formulaic black metal exist (and, actually, I'm pretty sure those two groups have some overlap), but most of us are into more than one thing even if we may have a "passion" for one thing above all others. That's why sticking to just one conlang (or one group of conlangs that share any kind of connection) may actually reduce your dedication to it and your creativity, since you're more likely to get indecisive over what features you want to include or exclude based on your current mood.

Phonoaesthetic taste isn't a monolith, just like musical taste. On some days you might love /d͡ɮˤ/ even if on most days you'd go "ew wtf get this shit outta my conlang!", just like on some days you might love Katy Perry's Firework even if you'd go "ew wtf get this shit outta my head!" if you randomly got it as an earworm.
Nloki wrote:
09 Jul 2019 09:13
I cannot discern among lot's of different roots that could be assigned to an only meaning and I just use logical strategies to choose whether a word should be included or not. For example; nēr for "man". But then I realise Quenya already uses nér (ner-) for "man"! So I start trying to coin some monosyllabic words that could fit the purpose and I find out - I don't like any of them! (Happens always the same way) so I give up for a while just to try again and achieve doing nothing.
I think that's normal if you think about conlanging in too "strategic" a way. Natlangs are often not logical and often have words that just sound wrong referring to the things they actually mean, etc. and even conlangs that strive to be logical and neat often end up having illogical with inconsistent sound symbolism, etc. Maybe try to assign words the most unfitting meanings and see if that helps you shuffle them around in a way that you like more? That's assuming you come up with meaningless roots first and then assign meanings, not the other way around. If you don't do it that way, maybe try that?
Nloki wrote:
09 Jul 2019 09:13
I also don't want to be recognized in any way for conlanging (since it's one of my hobbies which I suck the most at)
You mean you don't want people to be able to connect your accounts on conlanging forums to your accounts elsewhere or in real life or whatever?
Nloki wrote:
09 Jul 2019 09:13
It's always the same way; the more I learn or acknowledge, the less I success on something. It's sort of upside down but it's what most of my hobbies end up being: an endless hell.
That's how I am with music in some ways, as in the better I get the longer it takes to finish anything and I feel like I can't just do some weird shit and not really care about the quality. Unfortunately I don't know what an actual solution would be, but maybe it could be to just go back to doing things the way you used to do them even if it's hard? I've been trying that lately but can't yet say whether it works or not... but anyway, you implied you also have other hobbies besides conlanging. Maybe you could try to mix conlanging into your hobbies in some way, would that make it easier? I don't mean like randomly starting to yell in a conlang to your friends with a dead ass serious face if you're playing football or whatever, that'd be awkward as hell, but you know what I mean.
Keenir wrote:
09 Jul 2019 11:13
English uses no and Japanese uses noh...
:?:
Keenir wrote:
09 Jul 2019 11:13
phonetic coincidences happen, both in natlangs and conlangs. Tolkien's estate isn't going to hunt you down for a coincidence.
Exactly.

PS: Oops, this turned out a pretty long and tangential post... again... [:x]

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1743
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 09 Jul 2019 13:24

If you have no strong phonaesthetic tastes, then you have no problem - just string together any random phonemes (according to the phonotactic rules you choose) and there you go. It only becomes difficult if you expect there to be some mystical 'rightness' to any particular words. But of course we only have that feel because we become used to certain sounds meaning certain things.


[In any case, Tolkien himself didn't greatly value originality, and flagrently stole whole tranches of his vocabulary from real-word languages. "Nér", is just the Proto-Indo-European word for 'man' (we now think it had an initial laryngeal, but Tolkien wouldn't have known this at the time) - as seen in Greek anér, Sanskrit nára, and, most importantly for Tolkien, Welsh nér, "hero" (circumflix rather than acute, but...). So it's not like he can copyright it...]

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » 09 Jul 2019 18:48

Nloki wrote:
09 Jul 2019 09:13
and I just use logical strategies to choose whether a word should be included or not. For example; nēr for "man". But then I realise Quenya already uses nér (ner-) for "man"!
for what its worth, that word is also in IE with that meaning ... c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleiche ... sta_(1979) .... although that /nēr/ is only a reconstruction, presumably they know of cognates in attested languages.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3111
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 09 Jul 2019 20:24

How would a system of marking person on verbs evolve from a protolang that didn't have that feature?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 313
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 09 Jul 2019 20:40

I don't know of any other way except obligatory use of personal pronouns which then fuse with the verb to become affixes (but there may well be another way...).
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

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3111
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 09 Jul 2019 20:53

Zekoslav wrote:
09 Jul 2019 20:40
I don't know of any other way except obligatory use of personal pronouns which then fuse with the verb to become affixes (but there may well be another way...).
That's what I was thinking too. The protolang is SVO and will evolve to VSO and then VOS.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 286
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » 10 Jul 2019 04:48

I used evidentials.... feel/see/hear=1/2/3. Also feel/see/Ø would work.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

User avatar
gach
MVP
MVP
Posts: 713
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 01:26
Location: displaced from Helsinki

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

Post by gach » 10 Jul 2019 13:54

Participles can also be coopted as person markers, as seen for example in Finnic and Saamic. The obvious choise is from an active/agentive participle into 3rd person.
ImageKištaLkal sikSeic

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 313
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 10 Jul 2019 15:54

Shemtov wrote:
09 Jul 2019 20:53
Zekoslav wrote:
09 Jul 2019 20:40
I don't know of any other way except obligatory use of personal pronouns which then fuse with the verb to become affixes (but there may well be another way...).
That's what I was thinking too. The protolang is SVO and will evolve to VSO and then VOS.
If the protolang is SVO, then personal pronouns would become prefixes, which typologically fits VSO and VOS languages, IIRC. If you combine agglutinated personal pronouns idea with the participles idea, then the 3rd person would look somewhat different: it could have a different stem, or if your participles were inflected with suffixes it could have a plural suffix instead of prefix like the 1st and 2nd persons. It would add nice quirks to the system.
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

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 269
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 12 Jul 2019 18:40

Using qix /q͡ʡɨ̥ɴ/ [q͡ʡɨ̥ŋ̊] (name) as an example, Sjiaxfa, which has sg./dual/pl. numbers, forms its dual by prefixing a duplicate of a word's first vowel onto the singular, iqix /ɨ̥ˈq͡ʡɨ̥ɴ/ [ɨ̥ˈq͡ʡɨ̥ŋ̊] (two names), and its plural by suffixing -sai onto the dual, iqixsai /ɨ̥.q͡ʡɨ̥ɴˈsɒ̥.ɨ̥/ [ɨ̥.q͡ʡɨ̥ŋ̊ˈsɒ̥.ɨ̥] (three or more names). Is it plausible for a consonant phoneme, such as /s/, to assimilate to the same POA as /ɴ/'s allophone, such as [s → sˠ]?
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on 14 Jul 2019 18:26, edited 1 time in total.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 14 Jul 2019 16:41

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
12 Jul 2019 18:40
Is it plausible for a consonant phoneme, such as /s/, to assimilate to the same POA as /ɴ/'s allophone, such as [s → sˠ]?
I don't see why not.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 269
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 14 Jul 2019 21:07

shimobaatar wrote:
14 Jul 2019 16:41
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
12 Jul 2019 18:40
Is it plausible for a consonant phoneme, such as /s/, to assimilate to the same POA as /ɴ/'s allophone, such as [s → sˠ]?
I don't see why not.
Okay. Thanks.

/ɴ/'s allophones are [m̥ m̪̊ n̥ n̥͡m ç̃ ŋ̊]. [p p͡ʔ t t͡p k q͡ʡ s ʘ] assimilate into [m̥ m̪̊ n̥ n̥͡m ç̃ ŋ̊]'s POA, with [ç̃]—at least—palatalizing the sounds. Am I missing any obvious continuations other than [tʲ sʲ kʲ → ʨ̃ ɦ̃~ɕ͠͡x c], noting their co-articulation of [ʃ~ɕ] is for differentiation with [ç̃]?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 15 Jul 2019 03:36

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
14 Jul 2019 21:07
shimobaatar wrote:
14 Jul 2019 16:41
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
12 Jul 2019 18:40
Is it plausible for a consonant phoneme, such as /s/, to assimilate to the same POA as /ɴ/'s allophone, such as [s → sˠ]?
I don't see why not.
Okay. Thanks.

/ɴ/'s allophones are [m̥ m̪̊ n̥ n̥͡m ç̃ ŋ̊]. [p p͡ʔ t t͡p k q͡ʡ s ʘ] assimilate into [m̥ m̪̊ n̥ n̥͡m ç̃ ŋ̊]'s POA, with [ç̃]—at least—palatalizing the sounds. Am I missing any obvious continuations other than [tʲ sʲ kʲ → ʨ̃ ɦ̃~ɕ͠͡x c], noting their co-articulation of [ʃ~ɕ] is for differentiation with [ç̃]?
What are the conditioning environments for the various allophones of the uvular nasal?

I feel like I should note that, at least in the languages I'm most familiar, the tendency is for nasals to assimilate in POA to following consonants, and not the other way around, but maybe something like this happens in some languages I haven't read much about yet. Anyway, my point is that I wouldn't say your idea is completely implausible or nonsensical, even if I can't think of a natural precedent.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 269
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 15 Jul 2019 10:30

shimobaatar wrote:
15 Jul 2019 03:36
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
14 Jul 2019 21:07
shimobaatar wrote:
14 Jul 2019 16:41
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
12 Jul 2019 18:40
Is it plausible for a consonant phoneme, such as /s/, to assimilate to the same POA as /ɴ/'s allophone, such as [s → sˠ]?
I don't see why not.
Okay. Thanks.

/ɴ/'s allophones are [m̥ m̪̊ n̥ n̥͡m ç̃ ŋ̊]. [p p͡ʔ t t͡p k q͡ʡ s ʘ] assimilate into [m̥ m̪̊ n̥ n̥͡m ç̃ ŋ̊]'s POA, with [ç̃]—at least—palatalizing the sounds. Am I missing any obvious continuations other than [tʲ sʲ kʲ → ʨ̃ ɦ̃~ɕ͠͡x c], noting their co-articulation of [ʃ~ɕ] is for differentiation with [ç̃]?
What are the conditioning environments for the various allophones of the uvular nasal?

I feel like I should note that, at least in the languages I'm most familiar, the tendency is for nasals to assimilate in POA to following consonants, and not the other way around, but maybe something like this happens in some languages I haven't read much about yet. Anyway, my point is that I wouldn't say your idea is completely implausible or nonsensical, even if I can't think of a natural precedent.
The allophones, actually, started as separate phonemes. A few of the linguists noticed that Shiangfa's codas were all either nasals or nasalized and started using /ɴ/ as "convenience shorthand" for them. Eventually, it became standard notation for the language's moraic consonant. Thus, the allophones seem to appear randomly.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

Post Reply