Conlang Random Thread

[Raphael]

Would there be interest in a separate thread where people could post voice recordings of their conlangs? If someone started such a thread, would anyone post in it?

[aliensdrinktea]

My newest conlang has a couple rules:

1. Roots have semantic meaning but no inherent part of speech.
2. Part of speech is marked by a prefix, and all POS + root combinations are valid.

I'm working out the numbers right now, and the verb forms are pretty straightforward: 2 is double/duplicate (probably extended to "copy"), 3 is triplicate, and so forth. But what about 1? All I can think of is "unite/unify", but it seems to me it'd make more sense for that to be analogous to "divide" rather than "duplicate."

Any suggestions?

[jal]

Any suggestions?

1. Roots typically don't have an inherent part of speech, afaik.
2. Marking "part of speech" by a prefix is very artificial, but if you're creating an auxlang, why not. Same for "all POS + root combinations are valid" - not very naturalistic, and no doubt there are roots that kinda defy a straigtforward meaning. Also, note that given a root, even for a single part of speech you can derive many words, e.g. from a root of associated with food, you can have "eat", "forage", "regurgitate", "cook" as verbs, and "cook", "food", "eater", "prey" as nouns.

I'm working out the numbers right now

I cannot make head or tails of what you write there, perhaps someone else can...


JAL

[Richard W]

But what about 1? All I can think of is "unite/unify", but it seems to me it'd make more sense for that to be analogous to "divide" rather than "duplicate."

FWIW, the Semitic verbs from the 'one' root mean 'to unite', so just accept that 'one' is different to other positive integers.

[bradrn]

I'm working out the numbers right now

I cannot make head or tails of what you write there, perhaps someone else can...

Honestly, neither can I.

[Nila_MadhaVa]

I'm working out the numbers right now

I cannot make head or tails of what you write there, perhaps someone else can...

Honestly, neither can I.

I think they mean that the word for 2 derives from the root meaning double/duplicate, 3 from triplicate and so on.

@aliensdrinktea you could also use single/individual/alone/solitary or maybe isolate for 1

[aliensdrinktea]

Marking "part of speech" by a prefix is very artificial, but if you're creating an auxlang, why not. Same for "all POS + root combinations are valid" - not very naturalistic, and no doubt there are roots that kinda defy a straigtforward meaning.

I know that, but I'm not aiming for naturalism. I started with the idea of "can I make a language work without function words?" and went from there. "Every word can belong to any part of speech" is another constraint I added for the hell of it. Why not, right?

Also, note that given a root, even for a single part of speech you can derive many words, e.g. from a root of associated with food, you can have "eat", "forage", "regurgitate", "cook" as verbs, and "cook", "food", "eater", "prey" as nouns.

That's true, and perhaps I should be more clear about how this language works:

The vocabulary is constructed out of lexical roots, which can function as either a noun, verb, or modifier (adjectives and adverbs aren't distinguished morphologically), depending on what prefix it takes. All words consist of a POS prefix and one or more roots; derivation within one part of speech is achieved through compounding.

Anyway, my struggle at the moment is making "one" work as a verb.

FWIW, the Semitic verbs from the 'one' root mean 'to unite', so just accept that 'one' is different to other positive integers.

Okay, that's a good point. I just did some research, and it looks like the form II verbs corresponding to one, two, and three in Arabic mean "unite", "double", and "triple", respectively. So I suppose I could do the same with my language.

I think they mean that the word for 2 derives from the root meaning double/duplicate, 3 from triplicate and so on.

Correct. (Though I admit I came up with the numbers first and the verb meanings after.)

@aliensdrinktea you could also use single/individual/alone/solitary or maybe isolate for 1

Also a good suggestion, thank you!

[FlamyobatRudki]

The Good thought language.

Words obscure and cloud meaning therefore their is no derivational or complex morphology,
so that words may not lie this is totally logical and not a refference to obscurantist giberish from suppoesdly from the 16th century.
––
phonotactic rules are as follows

the following phonotactic rules shall are applied to the vocabulary phrase sentences and discourse;

CV,
unless it is CVC, however…
incase of CVC the final consonant shall be restricted to being the same as both the same as coda of the previous syllable o[if applicable] and the onset of the next syllable even across word boundaries within the same phrase, if there is no coda of the previous syllable the coda must still be the same as the onset of the previous syllable, if their is no previous syllable the coda must be the same as the onset
further restriction is that two closed syllables may not occur more than one within any noun or word phrase.
Neither the initial nor ultimate syllable of a phrase or word may contain a coda consonant.

the article has underlying form of CV,

the word formation rule is: p > t > m > n
any stop must precede a nasal, and

within a word n must precede m, and t must precede p,
a word phrase may have at most two identical syllables.

every phonemic restriction that is a phrase rule that would apply to a one word phrase if one word phrases were allowed applies as a word rule,
phrase rules are applied after word rules
a noun phrase or or a verb phrase, may have atmost one change of vowel,
further more a vowel may not change on ultimate syllable of a noun phrase or the ultimate syllable of a verb phrase.

within a phrase or paragraph all consonants after the first nasal consonant shall also be nasalised,
as such all non nasals must precede any nasals within a word.
nasal spread also affects the entire remainder of the discourse.
further more all syllables are fronted before the last fronted syllable, and all syllabled as guteralized before the first gutteral syllable, this also applies across the entire discourse. no sentence may start with a consonant which is both gutteral and nasal, unless the only consonant permited is bothj gutteral and nasal.

their are fewer consonants for which ever gender or sex is less dominant,
and anyone bellow gosch no idea why its called where anyone isn't betwee 35~40 years is deemed to be bellow gosh.
also in inter race relations the one in an actually less favourable position or proportedly less favourable position is also deemed bellow gosh, the same with actual or apparent or made up disability; or when other claim one has a disability but one very obviously doesn't have a disability but the motivation for these people to claim such is to garner sympathy or to profit financially generally at the expense of oneself and most everyone else around one including ones broader geographic or cultural community one is deemed to be bellow gosh and in the latter cases one is also deemed to be of the less dominant sex or gender, further more if a relationship would be deemed incestuous it is deemed both parties are deemed bellow gosh and less dominant sex or gender so.
if one of the interlocuters is 6 months younger then the other they are deemed bellow gosh.
if a contact as partners would be deemed missegination one of the two parties is always deemed to be bellow gosh and the less dominant sex or gender simultaneously,

and if ones sexuality or prefernce in sex or eating is not politically favour one is deemed of the less dominant sex or gender and one participants in said preference or resultant relationship shall be deemed bellow gosh.

these rules determine how many consonants and vowels you may distinguish in your speech;

if one is of the less dominant sex or gender, and bellow gosh you may speak with 1 consonant and may only use 1 vowel,
while if one is only bellow gosh on may use 2 consonants and 1 vowels,
or if one is only less dominant gender or sex one may also use 3 consonants and 1 vowels, but only if one isn't bellow gosh.
else one may distinguish all 4 consonants and 2 vowels EXCEPT
if the less dominant sex or gender happens to coincide with the one deemed more fair then one may one may only use 3 consonants and 1 vowel,
or one is presumed guilty because of ones biological sex or race, ethnic heritage, nationality or political or other status, one may use one fewer consonants if the resulting number is less than or equal to 1, in which case one may distinguish only one consonant regardless of the condition one may then distinguish only 1 vowel, if this number allows greater number of sound distinction under such condition if ones interlocuter happens to be the accusor one may use only 1 consonant distinction and 1 vowel, Attorney or representative of a client or second party, may use at most the same number of consonant and vowel distinctions as the client or second party in question.

unless one possess a social standing [earned or unearned] that is greater than that of ones intelocutor by one to distinguish at most one or more additional consonant distinctions, unless the number of permited consonant distinction is 3 or greater, in which case one may distinguish at most only an equal number of consonant and vowel distinctions, provided that this is permited by the already established rules.

if however one is of lower social standing by or by more than 2 steps however the number of consonant distincitons one may make is fewer then the ones one may otherwise make, unless that makes 1 or fewer consonant distinction in which case one may only distinguish 1 consonant, if however one has not been spocken to one is permited to distinguish 1 vowel, even if one would otherwise be permited to distinguish 2 vowels.

regarding morphology,
one may only be pama iff and only if the word preceding is said to be a good word,
if pama is negated it must agree only be if the preceded said to be an ungood word.
negation may only be used for words deemed to be negated.
for example if steve is a thing, then you may not say tata batatini.
unless steve is not a thing. you may not say what implies steve is not a thing unless steve is not a thing in which case you must say tata ta tatatini[no steve] and may not say ba batatini, or ba batatini nini
if steve is a thing you say ba batatini nini [good steve]

[bradrn]

I’m having quite a bit of trouble figuring out the converb system for Hlʉ̂. The facts are as follows:

• I want Hlʉ̂ to be intensely monosyllabic¹
• I want Hlʉ̂ to have clause chaining via converbs
• Many Hlʉ̂ words have codas
• Some auxiliaries prefer the content verb to be in converbal form

But also:

• Practically all known converbs are formally suffixal

Which makes it hard to maintain monosyllabicity when added to words with codas. I’ve thought about adding coda clusters, but Hlʉ̂’s consonant inventory is limited enough that sensible ones are hard to find. A few instances of periphrastic ‘converbs’ are known, but all are marginal cases, and anyway this would make them hard to use with auxiliaries; clitic converbs have the same problems, and are even more nonexistent.

Does anyone have any ideas to resolve these issues?

__________
¹ My inspiration here is Skou, a representative sample of which is: (Donohue 2004)

Ne ueme ne núng ne róe ko, ne róe na ne báng pa, ke ing atakúkú pa móewángto pa ne róe ko ne róe ko ne hì wá. Ne róe hì wá ko, ne núng ne ne ko ne, móe ne róe róe pa, ne róe na moe ne bàme. Ne róe na moe ne bàme, ne hì te pa te angku te pa ne nang nang. Núng ne róe pa na hoe ne hángpeng, ke ing tapíue ing a, te pa ko í i li ke ing tapíue ing a, núng ing ne róe hì te pa. Tapíue ne róe róe pa. Ne hì ko wá pe ing ko ne róe na moe ne, te è ko, te angku te pa ne nang nang.

Hlʉ̂ text doesn‘t ‘flow’ quite as easily as Skou due to all the codas, but the overall effect should be similar. Some multisyllabic words are fine, but normal conversation would have a converb every few words, so making all converbs disyllabic would make Hlʉ̂ practically non-monosyllabic.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I’m having quite a bit of trouble figuring out the converb system for Hlʉ̂.

...

Does anyone have any ideas to resolve these issues?

What do the converbs in this language look like now? My instinct is to say to have the converb somehow absorbed into the main stem (if you have such a verb as *ke and a converb *ot, the contracted form would go something like *[kejot] > *[kjeot] > *[kjøːt~c͡çøːt]; or, with such a form as *kek tot, have the second vowel be lost, alongside whatever consonants become difficult to articulate, but have it mutate the preceding vowel, such that */kektot/ becomes realised as something like *[kjokt]). You're going to get some really irregular forms doing this, but these could probably evolve into vowel gradation, having the verb */kek/ on its own, but in a serial chain, */kjok(t)/, for example. I suppose this would actually eliminate the converbs and give you a verb-chaining grade instead, however.

[bradrn]

What do the converbs in this language look like now?

I don’t know; that’s what I’ve been trying to figure out.

My instinct is to say to have the converb somehow absorbed into the main stem (if you have such a verb as *ke and a converb *ot, the contracted form would go something like *[kejot] > *[kjeot] > *[kjøːt~c͡çøːt]; or, with such a form as *kek tot, have the second vowel be lost, alongside whatever consonants become difficult to articulate, but have it mutate the preceding vowel, such that */kektot/ becomes realised as something like *[kjokt]). You're going to get some really irregular forms doing this, but these could probably evolve into vowel gradation, having the verb */kek/ on its own, but in a serial chain, */kjok(t)/, for example. I suppose this would actually eliminate the converbs and give you a verb-chaining grade instead, however.

I actually have thought of marking the converb through consonant mutation or vowel mutation — or, since this is Hlʉ̂, tonal changes. But mutation is tricky in a language with 8 consonants, 7 vowels and monosyllables, since it only increases the ambiguity. (Unless it’s a perfect one-to-one mapping, but when has that ever happened in a natlang?) Furthermore, I haven’t properly figured out the protolanguage yet. So tonal changes it is, I guess.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

My instinct is to say to have the converb somehow absorbed into the main stem (if you have such a verb as *ke and a converb *ot, the contracted form would go something like *[kejot] > *[kjeot] > *[kjøːt~c͡çøːt]; or, with such a form as *kek tot, have the second vowel be lost, alongside whatever consonants become difficult to articulate, but have it mutate the preceding vowel, such that */kektot/ becomes realised as something like *[kjokt]). You're going to get some really irregular forms doing this, but these could probably evolve into vowel gradation, having the verb */kek/ on its own, but in a serial chain, */kjok(t)/, for example. I suppose this would actually eliminate the converbs and give you a verb-chaining grade instead, however.

I actually have thought of marking the converb through consonant mutation or vowel mutation — or, since this is Hlʉ̂, tonal changes. But mutation is tricky in a language with 8 consonants, 7 vowels and monosyllables, since it only increases the ambiguity. (Unless it’s a perfect one-to-one mapping, but when has that ever happened in a natlang?) Furthermore, I haven’t properly figured out the protolanguage yet. So tonal changes it is, I guess.

You could do all these things? Tone shift plus vowel mutations (sometimes) plus final consonants (sometimes).

Addendum: I question whether a monosyllabic language with so few phonemes would not end up polysyllabic. Mandarin seems to be shifting (or to have already shifted) to primarily disyllabic words in practice.

[bradrn]

My instinct is to say to have the converb somehow absorbed into the main stem (if you have such a verb as *ke and a converb *ot, the contracted form would go something like *[kejot] > *[kjeot] > *[kjøːt~c͡çøːt]; or, with such a form as *kek tot, have the second vowel be lost, alongside whatever consonants become difficult to articulate, but have it mutate the preceding vowel, such that */kektot/ becomes realised as something like *[kjokt]). You're going to get some really irregular forms doing this, but these could probably evolve into vowel gradation, having the verb */kek/ on its own, but in a serial chain, */kjok(t)/, for example. I suppose this would actually eliminate the converbs and give you a verb-chaining grade instead, however.

I actually have thought of marking the converb through consonant mutation or vowel mutation — or, since this is Hlʉ̂, tonal changes. But mutation is tricky in a language with 8 consonants, 7 vowels and monosyllables, since it only increases the ambiguity. (Unless it’s a perfect one-to-one mapping, but when has that ever happened in a natlang?) Furthermore, I haven’t properly figured out the protolanguage yet. So tonal changes it is, I guess.

You could do all these things? Tone shift plus vowel mutations (sometimes) plus final consonants (sometimes).

Perhaps, but this doesn’t get around the fact that vowel/consonant mutations increase ambiguity.

Addendum: I question whether a monosyllabic language with so few phonemes would not end up polysyllabic. Mandarin seems to be shifting (or to have already shifted) to primarily disyllabic words in practice.

Iau is a counterexample. But I do expect this language to become polysyllabic in the future, especially given that it’s in contact with Wēchizaŋkəŋ. (I think; I’m still working out the geography of the area.)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I actually have thought of marking the converb through consonant mutation or vowel mutation — or, since this is Hlʉ̂, tonal changes. But mutation is tricky in a language with 8 consonants, 7 vowels and monosyllables, since it only increases the ambiguity. (Unless it’s a perfect one-to-one mapping, but when has that ever happened in a natlang?) Furthermore, I haven’t properly figured out the protolanguage yet. So tonal changes it is, I guess.

You could do all these things? Tone shift plus vowel mutations (sometimes) plus final consonants (sometimes).

Perhaps, but this doesn’t get around the fact that vowel/consonant mutations increase ambiguity.

Syncretism and ambiguity are well-documented attributes of natural languages, so I expect Hlû could also tolerate them. English allows wrote and rote to be pronounced identically, also, at least for me, there, their, they're, and also pee/pea, see/sea, peek/peak/pique, tea/tee, in dialects that aren't mine spa/spar, flaw/floor, gnaw/nor, and so on.

Addendum: I question whether a monosyllabic language with so few phonemes would not end up polysyllabic. Mandarin seems to be shifting (or to have already shifted) to primarily disyllabic words in practice.

Iau is a counterexample. But I do expect this language to become polysyllabic in the future, especially given that it’s in contact with Wēchizaŋkəŋ. (I think; I’m still working out the geography of the area.)

Does Hlû have similarly numerous tones?

[bradrn]

You could do all these things? Tone shift plus vowel mutations (sometimes) plus final consonants (sometimes).

Perhaps, but this doesn’t get around the fact that vowel/consonant mutations increase ambiguity.

Syncretism and ambiguity are well-documented attributes of natural languages, so I expect Hlû could also tolerate them. English allows wrote and rote to be pronounced identically, also, at least for me, there, their, they're, and also pee/pea, see/sea, peek/peak/pique, tea/tee, in dialects that aren't mine spa/spar, flaw/floor, gnaw/nor, and so on.

I know, it just makes me feel uncomfortable.

Addendum: I question whether a monosyllabic language with so few phonemes would not end up polysyllabic. Mandarin seems to be shifting (or to have already shifted) to primarily disyllabic words in practice.

Iau is a counterexample. But I do expect this language to become polysyllabic in the future, especially given that it’s in contact with Wēchizaŋkəŋ. (I think; I’m still working out the geography of the area.)

Does Hlû have similarly numerous tones?

It has five tones (or six, if you count the glottal stop). In total there are 15×7×((6×4)+2)=2730 syllables… so hmm, actually maybe ambiguity isn’t as big a problem as I thought. I’ll have to think about this.

[Emily]

how do you figure out the dating/time span for sound changes? i'm working on a modern descendant of gothic, and i'm developed a couple stages of sound changes, but i don't know how to realistically gauge what seems like two hundred years' worth of sound changes versus eight hundred years or whatever

[Travis B.]

how do you figure out the dating/time span for sound changes? i'm working on a modern descendant of gothic, and i'm developed a couple stages of sound changes, but i don't know how to realistically gauge what seems like two hundred years' worth of sound changes versus eight hundred years or whatever

Unfortunately there is not a solid answer for this - take, for instance, the time span from Old English to Middle English and the time span from Early Modern English to Modern English and contrast the degrees of change in each period. Likewise, contrast the change from Proto-Norse to Modern Icelandic and to Modern Danish.

[Vilike]

For one old project, I called "t=n" each generation, understood as a span of thirty years. Then I divided my list of sound changes into groups of 12-to-20 linear rules, called "t=n to t=n+x", where x is a number between seven and ten. The limit between each period corresponded to a historical event.
For 2000 years of evolution, I calculated 67 generations. At the end, I had 91 linear rules.
(More detailed explanations, but in French, at my Fiat Lingua upload)
(The SCA² file with the rules is provided here)

Nowadays, I do it carelessly, as the history of and influences on a language matter a lot wrt its stability. You could have a Modern Gothic as different from its source as French is from Latin, or Mandarin is from Old Chinese; or a Modern Gothic as close to the Ancient as Icelandic is to Old Norse.

[jal]

how do you figure out the dating/time span for sound changes? i'm working on a modern descendant of gothic, and i'm developed a couple stages of sound changes, but i don't know how to realistically gauge what seems like two hundred years' worth of sound changes versus eight hundred years or whatever

Sound changes do not get about in even stretches of time. Chain shift happen pretty quickly, as are those brought on by language contact. Other changes might take a lot more time, e.g. the time it takes for a certain dialect to gain the prestige one. Also, how quickly can a sound change spread? Nomadic peoples with a fairly great amount of contact with other tribes through shared festivals and intermarriage and such may be quicker to adopt changes than farmers in a remote area never marrying anyone outside at least one village away.

Study actual sound changes, see how fast they went, and just fake it :).


JAL

[jal]

Would there be interest in a separate thread where people could post voice recordings of their conlangs? If someone started such a thread, would anyone post in it?

Just noticed this one, and not sure whether anyone has replied already. If definitely frequent such a thread, it's always nice to hear other people's conlangs (even with my bad hearing), and there have been some recordings shared in the past, so I guess at least some people would like this. Main problem would be hosting the sound clips I think.

As for me, I don't have very good recording gear, and I'm just busy with Sajiwan atm, so wouldn't make for too interesting recordings.


JAL