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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 06 Oct 2019 14:11

Creyeditor wrote:
06 Oct 2019 13:08
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
06 Oct 2019 02:27
My roleplay setting's Proto-Common language reconstructs with three ambiguously-rounded vowel phonemes; high front /ɩ/ (no actual IPA), near-high central /ɿ/ (again, no IPA), and low-mid central /ə̞/. Is it more natural for them to dissimilate into their respective /i, y/, /ɪ, ʊ/, and /ɛ, ɔ/ with complete (two results), some (one or two results), or no (one result) contrast?
What would be the condition for dissimilation? If none of them is specified for rounding, it's hard to have dissimilation between vowels for rounding.
Eventually, labial sounds, such as [p] and velars, such as [k], condition non-contrasting rounding, everything between them conditions non-contrasting unrounding, and laryngeals condition contrast. This results in the following examples: /my/, /ni/, and /hi, hy/.

Additionally, I'll be choosing a new symbol for the ambiguously-rounded near-high central vowel form among the following symbols to avoid altering diacritic locations for diphthongs: ɩ̽ ("mid-centralized" ɩ), ᵻ (ɪ with stroke), ᴕ (small cap ou), ᴜ (small cap u), and ᵾ (small cap ʉ). Do you guys have trouble seeing any of them?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

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

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

Post by holbuzvala » 07 Oct 2019 13:38

Zekoslav wrote:
06 Oct 2019 13:00
Spoiler:
I've got syntax questions...

Imagine an agglutinative language where only subjects can be made heads of relative clauses*. Making arguments other than subjects heads of relative clauses is done by a combination of applicatives (oblique argument > direct object) and passive (direct object > subject).

*This is done by suffixing the definite article at the end of the verb, nominalising it (suffixing the definite article can nominalise other constructions as well).

In that way, 'the town I lived in' would be expressed as 'the by me lived-in town' (1.sg-GEN LOC.app-live-PST-PASS-DEF town-DEF). After a quick glance at Swahili and an Austronesian language whose name I can't remember, using applicatives and passive this way seems pretty ordinary.

However...

I imagined the same language would be heavy on compounding, and that compounds would be developed by fusing noun phrases, trapping some case endings between the two parts of the compound in the process (rather like Germanic languages having the genitive ending as a link between the two parts of the compound, this language would have the locative in addition to the genitive ending).

This means that I could put the agent in the genitive case and compound it with the relativised/nominalised verb, so that 'the picture my brother looked at' would be expressed as 'the brother-looked-at picture' (brother-GEN-LOC.app-look-PST-PASS-DEF picture-DEF).

Howeverer...

I imagined the same language might have noun incorporation. This is verging on kitchen-sink so I said might instead of would have. This gives me the idea to 1. incorporate the direct object, 2. make the instrument into the direct object by applicatives and further into the subject by passive, the old subject becomes an oblique argument marked by the genitive 3. make the new subject the head of a relative clause 4. compound the old subject with the relative clause.

So 'the knife my brother cut the apple with' becomes 'the brother-apple-cut-with knife' (brother-GEN-INST.app-apple-cut-PST-PASS-DEF knife-DEF). I've successfully turned the entire relative clause into a single word, which is nifty and very agglutinative-synthetic, howeverest...
...is this thing even remotely realistic? [o.O] ?
I can't speak for its naturalism/realisticness, but I'd say it seems fine enough. My only chippings-in would be to perhaps consider: 1, how many distinct roots can be clumped into these relative-clause-amalgams; 2, using other cases in addition to the genitive; 3, giving mind the animacy of arguments - you say only subjects can be relativised, but does this narrow to only animate subjects? Or perhaps animate agents in relative compounds take the genitive, leaving other cases for inanimate things? Just to mull on.



Sound change/influence question:

Q1. Is is realistic to have /ʕ/ voicing voiceless stops and sibilants /p t k s t͡s/ when adjacent to them, regardless of whether it follows or precedes?

Or more simply:

ʕC-v > ʕC+v = realistic?
C-vʕ > C+vʕ = realistic?

Q2. If yes to Q1, would such voicing be blocked by aspirated stops? /pʰ tʰ kʰ/ ?

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2680
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 07 Oct 2019 19:57

holbuzvala wrote:
07 Oct 2019 13:38
Zekoslav wrote:
06 Oct 2019 13:00
Spoiler:
I've got syntax questions...

Imagine an agglutinative language where only subjects can be made heads of relative clauses*. Making arguments other than subjects heads of relative clauses is done by a combination of applicatives (oblique argument > direct object) and passive (direct object > subject).

*This is done by suffixing the definite article at the end of the verb, nominalising it (suffixing the definite article can nominalise other constructions as well).

In that way, 'the town I lived in' would be expressed as 'the by me lived-in town' (1.sg-GEN LOC.app-live-PST-PASS-DEF town-DEF). After a quick glance at Swahili and an Austronesian language whose name I can't remember, using applicatives and passive this way seems pretty ordinary.

However...

I imagined the same language would be heavy on compounding, and that compounds would be developed by fusing noun phrases, trapping some case endings between the two parts of the compound in the process (rather like Germanic languages having the genitive ending as a link between the two parts of the compound, this language would have the locative in addition to the genitive ending).

This means that I could put the agent in the genitive case and compound it with the relativised/nominalised verb, so that 'the picture my brother looked at' would be expressed as 'the brother-looked-at picture' (brother-GEN-LOC.app-look-PST-PASS-DEF picture-DEF).

Howeverer...

I imagined the same language might have noun incorporation. This is verging on kitchen-sink so I said might instead of would have. This gives me the idea to 1. incorporate the direct object, 2. make the instrument into the direct object by applicatives and further into the subject by passive, the old subject becomes an oblique argument marked by the genitive 3. make the new subject the head of a relative clause 4. compound the old subject with the relative clause.

So 'the knife my brother cut the apple with' becomes 'the brother-apple-cut-with knife' (brother-GEN-INST.app-apple-cut-PST-PASS-DEF knife-DEF). I've successfully turned the entire relative clause into a single word, which is nifty and very agglutinative-synthetic, howeverest...
...is this thing even remotely realistic? [o.O] ?
I can't speak for its naturalism/realisticness, but I'd say it seems fine enough. My only chippings-in would be to perhaps consider: 1, how many distinct roots can be clumped into these relative-clause-amalgams; 2, using other cases in addition to the genitive; 3, giving mind the animacy of arguments - you say only subjects can be relativised, but does this narrow to only animate subjects? Or perhaps animate agents in relative compounds take the genitive, leaving other cases for inanimate things? Just to mull on.


I see no reason why it couldn't appear "naturalistically".
Some points however:
- Defining "word" in highly polysynthetic constructions is hard. So it's possible that all the roots in your idea wouldn't be interpreted as parts of one word.
- Incorporation and compounding is basically the same process. In incorporation you add a noun to a verb while in compounding you add a noun to a noun. I'm somewhat skeptical with process morphology. 1. incorporate, 2. nominalize 3. compound. Basically possible, but is it the clearest description?

Voices can appear in nonfinite verb forms much easier than say tenses.

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 07 Oct 2019 20:34

Omzinesý wrote:
07 Oct 2019 19:57
holbuzvala wrote:
07 Oct 2019 13:38
Zekoslav wrote:
06 Oct 2019 13:00
Spoiler:
I've got syntax questions...

Imagine an agglutinative language where only subjects can be made heads of relative clauses*. Making arguments other than subjects heads of relative clauses is done by a combination of applicatives (oblique argument > direct object) and passive (direct object > subject).

*This is done by suffixing the definite article at the end of the verb, nominalising it (suffixing the definite article can nominalise other constructions as well).

In that way, 'the town I lived in' would be expressed as 'the by me lived-in town' (1.sg-GEN LOC.app-live-PST-PASS-DEF town-DEF). After a quick glance at Swahili and an Austronesian language whose name I can't remember, using applicatives and passive this way seems pretty ordinary.

However...

I imagined the same language would be heavy on compounding, and that compounds would be developed by fusing noun phrases, trapping some case endings between the two parts of the compound in the process (rather like Germanic languages having the genitive ending as a link between the two parts of the compound, this language would have the locative in addition to the genitive ending).

This means that I could put the agent in the genitive case and compound it with the relativised/nominalised verb, so that 'the picture my brother looked at' would be expressed as 'the brother-looked-at picture' (brother-GEN-LOC.app-look-PST-PASS-DEF picture-DEF).

Howeverer...

I imagined the same language might have noun incorporation. This is verging on kitchen-sink so I said might instead of would have. This gives me the idea to 1. incorporate the direct object, 2. make the instrument into the direct object by applicatives and further into the subject by passive, the old subject becomes an oblique argument marked by the genitive 3. make the new subject the head of a relative clause 4. compound the old subject with the relative clause.

So 'the knife my brother cut the apple with' becomes 'the brother-apple-cut-with knife' (brother-GEN-INST.app-apple-cut-PST-PASS-DEF knife-DEF). I've successfully turned the entire relative clause into a single word, which is nifty and very agglutinative-synthetic, howeverest...
...is this thing even remotely realistic? [o.O] ?
I can't speak for its naturalism/realisticness, but I'd say it seems fine enough. My only chippings-in would be to perhaps consider: 1, how many distinct roots can be clumped into these relative-clause-amalgams; 2, using other cases in addition to the genitive; 3, giving mind the animacy of arguments - you say only subjects can be relativised, but does this narrow to only animate subjects? Or perhaps animate agents in relative compounds take the genitive, leaving other cases for inanimate things? Just to mull on.


I see no reason why it couldn't appear "naturalistically".
Some points however:
- Defining "word" in highly polysynthetic constructions is hard. So it's possible that all the roots in your idea wouldn't be interpreted as parts of one word.
- Incorporation and compounding is basically the same process. In incorporation you add a noun to a verb while in compounding you add a noun to a noun. I'm somewhat skeptical with process morphology. 1. incorporate, 2. nominalize 3. compound. Basically possible, but is it the clearest description?

Voices can appear in nonfinite verb forms much easier than say tenses.
The general idea is that the language would allow derivation and compounding of inflected word forms (declined nouns and conjugated verbs), essentially treating inflectional morphemes as derivational. This is inspired by a presentation about Basque morphology.

Essentially, by compounding inflected nouns the relation between the head and the determiner of the compound would be explicit and there would be fine semantic nuances: 'palace-GEN-dog' belongs to a/the palace, while 'palace-LOC-dog' simply lives there. There would be some morphosyntactic distinction between compounded and non-compounded forms, for example compounded forms wouldn't show agreement, but non-compounded forms would: brother-GEN-house-DEF-LOC but brother-GEN-DEF-LOC house-DEF-LOC.

Relative clauses would be formed by suffixing the definite article to a fully inflected finite verb, and due to this process showing absolutely no information about the relative clauses's head's role in the clause, only subjects would be allowed to be heads of relative clauses.

In hindisght, I should probably abandon the idea of incorporating the agent into the verb (unless we get into a Sanskrit-like situation where people start playing with a dead language...), but I might keep incorporating the object, especially if my applicatives develop from serial verb constructions: 'Subject hammer take nail hit-STUFF' > 'Subject hammer INST.app-[nail-hit]-STUFF' "Subject hit a nail with the hammer" (language mostly head-final).
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
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5771
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 07 Oct 2019 22:27

So, you know how names like Nebuchadnezzar and Nabopolassar in the original Akkadian were Nabû-kudurri-uṣur and Nabû-apla-uṣur? I want to shorten names like that, but I can't think of any guiding principles for deciding what syllable is clipped and what is not.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3317
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 07 Oct 2019 22:50

Ahzoh wrote:
07 Oct 2019 22:27
So, you know how names like Nebuchadnezzar and Nabopolassar in the original Akkadian were Nabû-kudurri-uṣur and Nabû-apla-uṣur? I want to shorten names like that, but I can't think of any guiding principles for deciding what syllable is clipped and what is not.
At least in those two examples, it looks like the primary thing going on is vowel syncope where vowels appear adjacent to one another (Wiktionary gives Nabû-apal-uṣur instead, and weirdly so does Wikipedia in its article on Nabu-apla-iddina), and then the -kudurri- to -kadne- might be the result of stress-related vowel reduction (honestly no idea though).
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5771
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 07 Oct 2019 22:56

Well, I got these names:
ʾĀraž-Hējun
Näṣrup-Worxǟžu
Dawwal-ʾAx̣śuhi
Yǟnuñu-Ḳu-ʾÄnsaǧul / Wahuñu-Ḳu-ʾÄnsaǧul
Ḳuñwa-Rebu-Nobnǟbu / Ḳuñwe-Rebi-Nobnǟbi

Theophoric Compound Names:
Hǟḳala-Ḳu-Sad / Hǟḳala-Ḳi-Sad
Hǟḳala-Ḳu-ʾĀlad / Hǟḳala-Ḳi-ʾĀlad
Hǟḳala-Ḳu-ʾĀwaškō / Hǟḳala-Ḳi-ʾĀwaškō
ʾĒḳola-Ḳu-Myar / ʾĒḳola-Ḳi-Myar
ʾAsṭur-Hǟḳǟlu

It is hard for me to shorten them since they are compound formations with the word each having its own stress and the stress being placed on the last heaviest syllable.

And I have these sound changes:
i iː u uː > /i əj u əw/
e eː o oː > /ə i ə u/
a aː ɒ ɒː > /ɑ/

/c cʼ ɟ/ > /tʃ tʃʼ dʒ/ > /ʃ ʃʼ ʒ/
/ç çʼ ʝ/ > /ʃ ʃʼ ʒ/

/C.ɦ/ > /Cː/
/əj əw/ > /i u/ in closed syllables
/Cʼ/ > /C/ if consonant is same poa as a preceding ejective consonant
/s sʼ z/ > /ʃ ʃʼ ʒ/ RUKI sound law

I dunno, do these results make sense?
ʾĀraž-Hējun > ʾAražžunə
Hǟḳala-Ḳi-Sad > Haḳlaḳšadə or Haglaḳšadə or Haṭlaḳšadə
Hǟḳala-Ḳu-ʾĀlad > Haḳlakwalada or Haglaḳwalada or Haṭlaḳwalada
Hǟḳala-Ḳi-ʾĀwaškō > Haḳlakyawašku or Haglaḳyawašku or Haṭlaḳyawašku
ʾĒḳola-Ḳu-Myar > ʾIḳlakumyara or ʾIglaḳumyara or ʾIṭlaḳumyara
kudurri- to -kadne
Yea, that is the mystery to me. What I hate about diachronics is not thinking of these ingenious kinds of changes and other forms of word-shortening
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1686
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 08 Oct 2019 14:43

But the thing is, this has nothing to do with diachronic. /nabu:kudurris?ur/ did not evolve into /nEbjUk@dnEz@/. It was just misheard. Through a combination of mishearing and perhaps confusion in comparative orthography, it was borrowed into Hebrew in a distorted form, and then because it was both a really weird and a really rare word it underwent some random mishearings in Hebrew, and then it was borrowed from the written form of Hebrew into early modern English, again suffering distortion.

So this is in no way the result of regular diachronic sound change, nor or synchronic 'abbreviation' processes.

[similarly with names of pharaohs and so forth. Names get misheard and famous mishearings just stick (and then are themselves misheard)]


So if you want to give everyone abbreviated 'English' names... I guess they can be virtually anything you like, however randomly you choose them. The Greeks took the regnal title 'usermaatre setepenre', the last part of which was apparently pronounced /satʰepʰna'riːʕa/, and decided to call him "Ozymandias" (not to mention that his actual name was ' rꜥ-ms-sw', whatever that signifies phonetically).


EDIT: Manetho is full of these 'abbreviated' forms. Some a relatively straightforward - "Neferikara" becomes "Nepherkheres", "Ahmose" becomes "Amos". Others are more distorted: "Amenhotep" becomes "Ammenophis", "Artaxerxes" becomes "Okhos". Others are superficially baffling - "Thutmose" becomes "Khebron" - until you look at the other titles of the pharaoh (in this case 'Khebron' is thought to be from "A'akheperen-Re'", his throne name). And others are indeed baffling: one pharaoh's complete name was "Set-ib-tawi Set-ib-Nebty Netjeri-bik-nebu Ni-user-Re' Ini Ni-user-Re'", which Manetho records as simply "Rhathoures"...

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5771
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 08 Oct 2019 19:05

I don’t want anglicized names, I’m just not sure if old names consisting of transparent components fuse into unanalyzable units after, say, 600 or so years and if so, looking for some general principles for determining the outcome of such a process.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1686
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 08 Oct 2019 21:33

Of course they do - it's just normal soundchange over time. [plus sometimes an element of hypocorism that leads to abbreviations and irregularities]

Probably the main reason for ceasing to be transparent is semantic shift or the loss of a word. So "Eadweard" (wealth guardian) becomes opaque "Edward" once the word 'ed' drops out of use; likewise, "Aelfraed" (elf counsel) makes less sense once you lose the second element.

English is actually a bit unusual in this respect. Even leaving aside the vast numbers of imported (and hence opaque) names, and looking only at the Germanic, inherited ones, the sheer amount of borrowing of vocabulary has lead to, coincidentally, a huge number of the core naming elements (things like ed-, -ward, -mund, -hard, -wynn, -wine, -gar, etc) falling out of common use. And in many cases, indirectly inherited versions of the names (i.e. Norman French versions) outcompeted transparent English versions - so after the invasion, I imagine a lot of upwardly-mobile Hrothgars (famous spear) decided to go by Roger instead...

It's also worth mentioning that morphemes trapped inside names can be overlooked when sound changes happen - they can irregularly fail to undergo a certain change, or they can avoid an irregular change. So I think that 'Alfred' should probably be regularly 'Elfred', while "Herbert" (bright army) escaped the irregular metathesis of vowel and rhotic that lead to modern 'bright' (the indecision over the vowel height was already present, though).

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4509
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 11 Oct 2019 21:37

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
06 Oct 2019 14:11
Creyeditor wrote:
06 Oct 2019 13:08
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
06 Oct 2019 02:27
My roleplay setting's Proto-Common language reconstructs with three ambiguously-rounded vowel phonemes; high front /ɩ/ (no actual IPA), near-high central /ɿ/ (again, no IPA), and low-mid central /ə̞/. Is it more natural for them to dissimilate into their respective /i, y/, /ɪ, ʊ/, and /ɛ, ɔ/ with complete (two results), some (one or two results), or no (one result) contrast?
What would be the condition for dissimilation? If none of them is specified for rounding, it's hard to have dissimilation between vowels for rounding.
Eventually, labial sounds, such as [p] and velars, such as [k], condition non-contrasting rounding, everything between them conditions non-contrasting unrounding, and laryngeals condition contrast. This results in the following examples: /my/, /ni/, and /hi, hy/.

Additionally, I'll be choosing a new symbol for the ambiguously-rounded near-high central vowel form among the following symbols to avoid altering diacritic locations for diphthongs: ɩ̽ ("mid-centralized" ɩ), ᵻ (ɪ with stroke), ᴕ (small cap ou), ᴜ (small cap u), and ᵾ (small cap ʉ). Do you guys have trouble seeing any of them?
I can see the symbols. I think -- in general -- it would make most sense to dissimilate these for high and mid vowels into /i/,/u/ and /ɪ, ʊ/ and /e, /o/ and /ɛ, ɔ/. Backness/rounding contrast are less common for low vowels.
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]

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 12 Oct 2019 03:06

Creyeditor wrote:
11 Oct 2019 21:37
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
06 Oct 2019 14:11
Creyeditor wrote:
06 Oct 2019 13:08
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
06 Oct 2019 02:27
My roleplay setting's Proto-Common language reconstructs with three ambiguously-rounded vowel phonemes; high front /ɩ/ (no actual IPA), near-high central /ɿ/ (again, no IPA), and low-mid central /ə̞/. Is it more natural for them to dissimilate into their respective /i, y/, /ɪ, ʊ/, and /ɛ, ɔ/ with complete (two results), some (one or two results), or no (one result) contrast?
What would be the condition for dissimilation? If none of them is specified for rounding, it's hard to have dissimilation between vowels for rounding.
Eventually, labial sounds, such as [p] and velars, such as [k], condition non-contrasting rounding, everything between them conditions non-contrasting unrounding, and laryngeals condition contrast. This results in the following examples: /my/, /ni/, and /hi, hy/.

Additionally, I'll be choosing a new symbol for the ambiguously-rounded near-high central vowel form among the following symbols to avoid altering diacritic locations for diphthongs: ɩ̽ ("mid-centralized" ɩ), ᵻ (ɪ with stroke), ᴕ (small cap ou), ᴜ (small cap u), and ᵾ (small cap ʉ). Do you guys have trouble seeing any of them?
I can see the symbols. I think -- in general -- it would make most sense to dissimilate these for high and mid vowels into /i/,/u/ and /ɪ, ʊ/ and /e, /o/ and /ɛ, ɔ/. Backness/rounding contrast are less common for low vowels.
I forgot to mention that the high-mid /e, o/ weren't merged into a central vowel and that /u/ is separate from /ɩ/. Knowing these, particularly the tidbit about /u/, does your recommendation for /ɩ/ change? Please note, that I use the acoustic terminology (high/low) rather than the oral terminology (open/close).

Additionally, the local rhotic, [ɾ~r], vocalized into [ɐʴ] under certain circumstances. Eventually, that vowel's [ɐ] merged into the adjacent vowel and created, at least, rhotacism contrast, such as [æ, æʴ]. Is it plausible for the [ɐ] to drop non-low vowels in height upon merger as well, such as [uɾ~ur → uɐ̯ʴ → ʊ̠ʴ]?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

brblues
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 131
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 15:34

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

Post by brblues » 13 Oct 2019 14:02

Pabappa wrote:
21 Sep 2019 17:32
I would expect at least some sort of similar change outside that context. A lot of languages have redundancy that survives for thousands of years. e.g. -os and similar endings in Greek and Baltic, the /de la/ of Spanish (vs Portuguese /da/), etc.. Portuguese contracted /de la/ to /da/, but only by eliminating some other intervocalic /l/'s as well.
Thanks for your reply, also thanks to Ser and Pabappa, and sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I put this change on the backburner for a while!

Just so I understand correctly; do you think such random shortenings would be improbable in general, or just here because it is a grammatical ending that would basically be dropped from a different word each time? I am asking this time cause I am thinking of making some individual words shorter (in the vein of saying "phone" instead of "telephone").

Are these two things considered separate processes?

User avatar
cedh
MVP
MVP
Posts: 377
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by cedh » 14 Oct 2019 11:50

Quick notation question:

I'm working on a language that uses a lot of reduplication, which is glossed with a tilde according to the Leipzig Glossing Rules, e.g.

Code: Select all

kekearu
CV~  kearo-u
EMPH~big  -FG
'very big'
The language also has several morphemes that condition nasality on a preceding or following vowel, for instance the enclitic inchoative verbaliser =ru / =ri (the final vowel marks foreground vs. background information):

Code: Select all

kearõru
kearo=ru
big  =become.FG
'grow big'
I want to mark this kind of morphophonology somehow, and my usual strategy would be to list a suffix like this as ~ru instead of -ru, with a tilde instead of the usual hyphen to indicate vowel nasality. However, in this language this obviously clashes with using the tilde to gloss reduplicative elements, and it also doesn't indicate that the morpheme I'm talking about here is not a true suffix, but an enclitic. So I'm looking for a way to indicate a triggering environment for vowel nasality that is (a) easy to understand, (b) does not clash with glossing for reduplication, and (c) can be used at both affix and clitic boundaries. Any suggestions?

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11690
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 14 Oct 2019 12:04

Perhaps =Ṽru? Although that's not easy to type on a default keyboard.

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 296
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

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

Post by Vlürch » 14 Oct 2019 12:44

cedh wrote:
14 Oct 2019 11:50
Any suggestions?
Maybe a capital N, so =Nru? I guess that could be mistaken for neuter gender or negation, but probably not.

EDIT: Also a question: when deriving vocabulary from an IRL reconstructed proto-language, is it ok if some words remain identical after sound changes? Both of the two words in question that that's happened with so far are identical in one of the IRL languages that the reconstructions are based on too (but not the same language), so I think it should be fine, but it still feels wrong like it's plagiarism or something? [:S]

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2824
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 14 Oct 2019 17:21

Vlürch wrote:
14 Oct 2019 12:44
EDIT: Also a question: when deriving vocabulary from an IRL reconstructed proto-language, is it ok if some words remain identical after sound changes? Both of the two words in question that that's happened with so far are identical in one of the IRL languages that the reconstructions are based on too (but not the same language), so I think it should be fine, but it still feels wrong like it's plagiarism or something? [:S]
It's entirely possible for a word to end up identical to its etymon, either because none of the sound changes have applied to it yet, or because the sound changes have taken it in a big circle. French has a hint of the latter in its vowel changes, where Latin short /u/ became /o/ in Proto-Romance but ultimately shifted back to /u/ by Modern French.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4509
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 14 Oct 2019 22:09

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
12 Oct 2019 03:06


I forgot to mention that the high-mid /e, o/ weren't merged into a central vowel and that /u/ is separate from /ɩ/. Knowing these, particularly the tidbit about /u/, does your recommendation for /ɩ/ change? Please note, that I use the acoustic terminology (high/low) rather than the oral terminology (open/close).
I think that makes /ɩ/ to /i,y/ more sensible.

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
12 Oct 2019 03:06

Additionally, the local rhotic, [ɾ~r], vocalized into [ɐʴ] under certain circumstances. Eventually, that vowel's [ɐ] merged into the adjacent vowel and created, at least, rhotacism contrast, such as [æ, æʴ]. Is it plausible for the [ɐ] to drop non-low vowels in height upon merger as well, such as [uɾ~ur → uɐ̯ʴ → ʊ̠ʴ]?
I think that makes sense. You might not even need the intermediate stage. [uɾ]~[ur] → [ʊ̠ʴ] is an okay change as well.



cedh wrote:
14 Oct 2019 11:50
Quick notation question:

I'm working on a language that uses a lot of reduplication, which is glossed with a tilde according to the Leipzig Glossing Rules, e.g.

Code: Select all

kekearu
CV~  kearo-u
EMPH~big  -FG
'very big'
The language also has several morphemes that condition nasality on a preceding or following vowel, for instance the enclitic inchoative verbaliser =ru / =ri (the final vowel marks foreground vs. background information):

Code: Select all

kearõru
kearo=ru
big  =become.FG
'grow big'
I want to mark this kind of morphophonology somehow, and my usual strategy would be to list a suffix like this as ~ru instead of -ru, with a tilde instead of the usual hyphen to indicate vowel nasality. However, in this language this obviously clashes with using the tilde to gloss reduplicative elements, and it also doesn't indicate that the morpheme I'm talking about here is not a true suffix, but an enclitic. So I'm looking for a way to indicate a triggering environment for vowel nasality that is (a) easy to understand, (b) does not clash with glossing for reduplication, and (c) can be used at both affix and clitic boundaries. Any suggestions?
I ran into a similar issue before. Morphophonological changes are usually indicated in LGR as a backslash. The thing is that this would lead to double marking à la:

Code: Select all

kearõru
kearo=ru
big  \become.FG=become.FG
'grow big'
What I usually do is ommitting one of the two instances of the morphological category.

Code: Select all

kearõru
kearo=ru
big  \=become.FG
'grow big'
For the second line, I usually just do the usual affix and clitic boundary, only sometimes an abbreviation of the morphophonological process. But I could also imagine using capital letters for the processes, similar to archiphonemes. It would look something like this.

Code: Select all

kearõru
kearo\N=ru
big  \=become.FG
'grow big'
You could then list this affix as \N=ru
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]

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 15 Oct 2019 17:24

Creyeditor wrote:
14 Oct 2019 22:09
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
12 Oct 2019 03:06


I forgot to mention that the high-mid /e, o/ weren't merged into a central vowel and that /u/ is separate from /ɩ/. Knowing these, particularly the tidbit about /u/, does your recommendation for /ɩ/ change? Please note, that I use the acoustic terminology (high/low) rather than the oral terminology (open/close).
I think that makes /ɩ/ to /i,y/ more sensible.
Okay.
Creyeditor wrote:
14 Oct 2019 22:09
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
12 Oct 2019 03:06

Additionally, the local rhotic, [ɾ~r], vocalized into [ɐʴ] under certain circumstances. Eventually, that vowel's [ɐ] merged into the adjacent vowel and created, at least, rhotacism contrast, such as [æ, æʴ]. Is it plausible for the [ɐ] to drop non-low vowels in height upon merger as well, such as [uɾ~ur → uɐ̯ʴ → ʊ̠ʴ]?
I think that makes sense. You might not even need the intermediate stage. [uɾ]~[ur] → [ʊ̠ʴ] is an okay change as well.
Before vowel rhotacism, Mærer was [ˈmæ.ɾeɾ]. Afterwards, is it more natural for (a) a blocking rule to yield [ˈmæ.ɾe̞ʴ], (b) rhotacism to effect both vowels(*) and yield [mæʴȇ̞ʴ], (c) (b) yielding [mæʵȇ̞], or (d) (*) yielding [mæȇ̞ʵ]? In this case, ʴ represents partial rhotacism, and ʵ represents full rhotacism.

Are rhotacised vowels, such as [æʴ], most likely to be more sonorous or, simply, relatively stronger than non-rhotacised vowels, such as [æ]?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1830
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

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

Post by All4Ɇn » 15 Oct 2019 19:02

Is it at all possible that a language currently spoken in Europe could lack the phoneme /j/ except in the case of loanwords? I'm having a hard time finding any languages which lack the sound.

Post Reply