You are right.
Did the languages look different enough, or did the repeating words help?
You are right.
The languages looked distinctly different to me.rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 9:19 pmYou are right.
Did the languages look different enough, or did the repeating words help?
Good to know.
I strongly doubt it, but remind me to consult my sources tomorrow. (In any case you can always add an extra clause saying ‘my buddy told me’ or whatnot.)Emily wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 5:29 pm evidentials question: for languages with evidentials that incude one for e.g. "i didn't witness it but it was reported to me/i heard about it/i read an article about it" etc., is it attested for there to be an option to pair the evidential itself with more detail about the source? e.g. if the evidential is "skalta" then "skalta newspaper" or "skalta my-buddy". or is that not really how they work
Never heard of base-48 myself but sounds interesting. I have been experimenting a lot with base-12 and derivatives and it has certainly grown on me. What does the second column represent, ordinals perhaps? Also does the letter <ȹ> represent a labiodental stop or something else?
Yeah, it is interesting me in that it is kinda like an octal system combined with a duodecimal system (the way that base-60 is decimal combined with duodecimal), and also it has a kind of ternary form, too. With my music head on, I like that it can be divided into 16s, but there are three of them, and into 12s, but each one is composed of ‘triplets’.malloc wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 10:02 pmNever heard of base-48 myself but sounds interesting. I have been experimenting a lot with base-12 and derivatives and it has certainly grown on me. What does the second column represent, ordinals perhaps? Also does the letter <ȹ> represent a labiodental stop or something else?
| 49 | leʔe | nı |
| 50 | lenu | nu |
Not grammatically, but of course it may be part of the discours. As for how evidentiality works, the Wikipedia page is a nice primer.Emily wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 5:29 pmevidentials question: for languages with evidentials that incude one for e.g. "i didn't witness it but it was reported to me/i heard about it/i read an article about it" etc., is it attested for there to be an option to pair the evidential itself with more detail about the source? e.g. if the evidential is "skalta" then "skalta newspaper" or "skalta my-buddy". or is that not really how they work
thank you!jal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 4:23 amNot grammaticallyEmily wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 5:29 pmevidentials question: for languages with evidentials that incude one for e.g. "i didn't witness it but it was reported to me/i heard about it/i read an article about it" etc., is it attested for there to be an option to pair the evidential itself with more detail about the source? e.g. if the evidential is "skalta" then "skalta newspaper" or "skalta my-buddy". or is that not really how they work
yes i know, i have been a conlanger for decades and i've done all kinds of crazy shit in various languages. but like many people in the hobby i do value realism and believability, which is why i asked about irl attestation
Fair enough. I didn't recognize your handle, but my memory is getting worse these days.

may I present to you: slurring your words like you're drunk. sure, its a cheap get-around, but it fits all the bills. you can (mostly) understand someone who's slurring their words, it's not too similar or dissimilar to any dialect of english (at least that i'm aware of), and you can fairly easily label it as a dialect as there's nothing against over-lenition aside from it sounding foreign and strange, which is the goal.Glass Half Baked wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 7:00 pm Here's a puzzle for you all.
You're making a movie or TV show that takes place in the present day. Some people arrive who natively speak an imaginary dialect of English. I don't know what country they're from, but let's assume it is a fictional Anglophonic country with whatever history or geography you care to fill in. This dialect is immediately recognizable by the viewer as not any existing dialect they know. This means it needs to satisfy two criteria:
1. It is recognizable as not the dialect of the viewer or other characters in the movie or TV show (e.g. if the story takes place in London, it can't be so similar to SE British English that the viewer won't notice the difference).
2. It is not slotted into any existing dialects (e.g. the viewer won't think "Huh. I guess they're from Scotland?").
So far, I have found this task to be incredibly difficult. Any plausible alternate dialects get subconsciously slotted into existing dialects, while more radical sound changes make it hard to present as native English.
Obviously. Americans are famously accent-deaf (or so I've read more than once), and the British are famously good at guessing where someone's from based on their accent. And given the huge variety of native accents there are, it'll be quite difficult to come up with anything that doesn't vaguely sound "Scottish" or "American" or "West Country" or "Indian English" or "Jamaican English" and so on.Glass Half Baked wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 7:00 pmSo far, I have found this task to be incredibly difficult. Any plausible alternate dialects get subconsciously slotted into existing dialects, while more radical sound changes make it hard to present as native English.