Conlang fluency thread

[bradrn]

Lágam neujam hrewami.
language-OBJ new-OBJ try-1SG.PRES.ACT
'I am trying out a new language.'

K'is 3na3m°n Prijam-Hesperik'jam hesei.
this-GEN name Proto-Hesperic be-3SG.PRES.PASS
'Its name is Proto-Hesperic.'

Bisayleselbuʼ fwes naʼsnos tomawaniʼr bwoŋ?
[bi.saj.le.selˌbuʔ fwes.naʔs.nos.to.ma.waˈniʔʒ bʷoŋ]
b-isay-les·e·lbuʼ fwes naʼsnos to-ma-wa·niʼr bwoŋ
1s-PERF-think language ANA DEF.SG-NEG-is·new Q?

I thought this wasn’t a new language?

[Imralu]

And German orthography is simpler than that of Dutch.

Fo sahtm no! Holandes raying mana u isi pas Jahman, sef dem batm twin-"n".
Definitely not! Dutch ortography is easier than German's, except for the dreaded between-"n".

ik leef
we/wij leven
ik heb geleefd

[lëtzeshark]

And German orthography is simpler than that of Dutch.

Fo sahtm no! Holandes raying mana u isi pas Jahman, sef dem batm twin-"n".
Definitely not! Dutch ortography is easier than German's, except for the dreaded between-"n".

ik leef
we/wij leven
ik heb geleefd

And German orthography is simpler than that of Dutch.

Fo sahtm no! Holandes raying mana u isi pas Jahman, sef dem batm twin-"n".
Definitely not! Dutch ortography is easier than German's, except for the dreaded between-"n".

ik leef
we/wij leven
ik heb geleefd

S'ortografa è concuranta viraieu mit comãt si frasi sãt diti, ahè me clopa.
The spelling here reflects the pronunciation very transparently, so it makes sense (to me).

More: show

Long vowels are written as double vowels in closed syllables, plus there's final consonant devoicing in Eldritch Dutch. Dutch also prefers to read an open syllable structure, which is why my friend's name [ˈrɔbəɾt] is written as Robbert, because Robert would read [ˈrobəɾt].

[WeepingElf]

Lágam neujam hrewami.
language-OBJ new-OBJ try-1SG.PRES.ACT
'I am trying out a new language.'

K'is 3na3m°n Prijam-Hesperik'jam hesei.
this-GEN name Proto-Hesperic be-3SG.PRES.PASS
'Its name is Proto-Hesperic.'

Bisayleselbuʼ fwes naʼsnos tomawaniʼr bwoŋ?
[bi.saj.le.selˌbuʔ fwes.naʔs.nos.to.ma.waˈniʔʒ bʷoŋ]
b-isay-les·e·lbuʼ fwes naʼsnos to-ma-wa·niʼr bwoŋ
1s-PERF-think language ANA DEF.SG-NEG-is·new Q?

I thought this wasn’t a new language?

Wergim dlangam prest°m, 3age nu hrewiskjami.
Work-1SG.PRET.ACT long-OBJ time-OBJ but now try-begin-1SG.PRES.ACT
'I worked on it for a long time, but now I start trying it out.'

[xxx]

K'is 3na3m°n Prijam-Hesperik'jam hesei.

Olbit im luk nays, fi imploy "3" fo leta, no an-mos op a wo "°" gol atol, a ray ogli.

i¿RÁ4°®RÁU
(new word needing new view...)
new word needing new view...

[jal]

ik leef
we/wij leven
ik heb geleefd

I don't have the time to write this in Sajiwan, but this follows the pronunciation quite closely, as lëtzeshark wrote. The only weird thing is that this is only done for v/f and z/s, but not for b/p and d/t. So:
ik baad [ba:t]
wij baden [ba:d@n]
ik heb gebaad [x@ba:t]
There's some etymological reason to this, but it's quite opaque.


JAL

[Travis B.]

ik leef
we/wij leven
ik heb geleefd

I don't have the time to write this in Sajiwan, but this follows the pronunciation quite closely, as lëtzeshark wrote. The only weird thing is that this is only done for v/f and z/s, but not for b/p and d/t. So:
ik baad [ba:t]
wij baden [ba:d@n]
ik heb gebaad [x@ba:t]
There's some etymological reason to this, but it's quite opaque.

IIRC the reason is that /v/ and /f/, and /z/ and /s/ originally were not separate phonemes in Dutch, with [v] just being a prevocalic allophone of short /f/ and [z] being a prevocalic allophone of short /s/, whereas /b/ and /p/, and /d/ and /t/ were separate phonemes from the beginning (with /b/ and /d/ just getting devoiced finally from Middle Dutch on), such that it was never transparent where final [p] corresponds to prevocalic [b] or final [t] corresponds to prevocalic [d].

[jal]

IIRC the reason is that /v/ and /f/, and /z/ and /s/ originally were not separate phonemes in Dutch, with [v] just being a prevocalic allophone of short /f/ and [z] being a prevocalic allophone of short /s/, whereas /b/ and /p/, and /d/ and /t/ were separate phonemes from the beginning (with /b/ and /d/ just getting devoiced finally from Middle Dutch on), such that it was never transparent where final [p] corresponds to prevocalic [b] or final [t] corresponds to prevocalic [d].

Yes, that's the long answer, /v/ of course was never a thing in PIE/proto-Germanic, and proto-Germanic /z/ underwent all kinds of changes iirc, making way for s>z allophony. But when Dutch spelling was standardized, this wasn't common knowledge, and only put in by scholars for etymological reasons.


JAL

[Travis B.]

IIRC the reason is that /v/ and /f/, and /z/ and /s/ originally were not separate phonemes in Dutch, with [v] just being a prevocalic allophone of short /f/ and [z] being a prevocalic allophone of short /s/, whereas /b/ and /p/, and /d/ and /t/ were separate phonemes from the beginning (with /b/ and /d/ just getting devoiced finally from Middle Dutch on), such that it was never transparent where final [p] corresponds to prevocalic [b] or final [t] corresponds to prevocalic [d].

Yes, that's the long answer, /v/ of course was never a thing in PIE/proto-Germanic, and proto-Germanic /z/ underwent all kinds of changes iirc, making way for s>z allophony. But when Dutch spelling was standardized, this wasn't common knowledge, and only put in by scholars for etymological reasons.

In older Dutch writing (e.g. Middle Dutch and Early Modern Dutch), they often did alternate <b> and <p>, <d> and <t>, and also <g> and <ch>, as you must know, and fixing spelling to one or the other of each pair is really a relatively modern thing.

[jal]

In older Dutch writing (e.g. Middle Dutch and Early Modern Dutch), they often did alternate <b> and <p>, <d> and <t>, and also <g> and <ch>, as you must know, and fixing spelling to one or the other of each pair is really a relatively modern thing.

Of course, the first official spelling of Dutch is from 1804. But etymological principles have always been part of Dutch spelling since.


JAL

[quinterbeck]

K'is 3na3m°n Prijam-Hesperik'jam hesei.
this-GEN name Proto-Hesperic be-3SG.PRES.PASS
'Its name is Proto-Hesperic.'

Se nehefino "3" hal "°" jaoe?
what speech.sound "3" and "°" have-ACT-INT.OBJ
What sounds do "3" and "°" make?

[Travis B.]

Ik heb wunderd ower dat tu, muut ik seggen. De benuting fan "3" maak mik denken fan de benuting fan talen in de skraiwing fan arabisk.

[Travis B.]

Skal ik skraiwen /eː oː øː iː uː yː aɪ aʊ aʏ/ als ⟨ee oo öö ii uu üü ai au aü⟩ oder als ⟨ee oo öö ie ue üe ii uu üü⟩? Ook skal ik benuten ⟨ii⟩, ⟨ij⟩ oder ⟨y⟩? En andere fraag is, of ik skal benuten ⟨w⟩ oder ⟨v⟩.

[WeepingElf]

K'is 3na3m°n Prijam-Hesperik'jam hesei.
this-GEN name Proto-Hesperic be-3SG.PRES.PASS
'Its name is Proto-Hesperic.'

Se nehefino "3" hal "°" jaoe?
what speech.sound "3" and "°" have-ACT-INT.OBJ
What sounds do "3" and "°" make?

(Sorry for not replying in Proto-Hesperic or some other conlang:) 3 is a kind of "laryngeal", probably a pharyngeal continuant [ʕ], and ° is an epenthetic ("prop") vowel, probably [ə]. Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values, except that ' marks not glottalization but aspiration. ("Probably" because Proto-Hesperic is intrafictionally a reconstructed language whose phonetic details can only be guessed.)

[Travis B.]

K'is 3na3m°n Prijam-Hesperik'jam hesei.
this-GEN name Proto-Hesperic be-3SG.PRES.PASS
'Its name is Proto-Hesperic.'

Se nehefino "3" hal "°" jaoe?
what speech.sound "3" and "°" have-ACT-INT.OBJ
What sounds do "3" and "°" make?

(Sorry for not replying in Proto-Hesperic or some other conlang:) 3 is a kind of "laryngeal", probably a pharyngeal continuant [ʕ], and ° is an epenthetic ("prop") vowel, probably [ə]. Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values, except that ' marks not glottalization but aspiration. ("Probably" because Proto-Hesperic is intrafictionally a reconstructed language whose phonetic details can only be guessed.)

Also sii du Proto-Hesperic als en naachfultogene spraak, de du weet de fulle laudlike wesen daarfan nicht.

[WeepingElf]

Se nehefino "3" hal "°" jaoe?
what speech.sound "3" and "°" have-ACT-INT.OBJ
What sounds do "3" and "°" make?

(Sorry for not replying in Proto-Hesperic or some other conlang:) 3 is a kind of "laryngeal", probably a pharyngeal continuant [ʕ], and ° is an epenthetic ("prop") vowel, probably [ə]. Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values, except that ' marks not glottalization but aspiration. ("Probably" because Proto-Hesperic is intrafictionally a reconstructed language whose phonetic details can only be guessed.)

Also sii du Proto-Hesperic als en naachfultogene spraak, de du weet de fulle laudlike wesen daarfan nicht.

Ja.

[Travis B.]

Ik heb andskieden, dat ik skal benutten ⟨ee oo öö ie ue üe ii uu üü⟩ füer /eː oː øː iː uː yː aɪ aʊ aʏ/, med ⟨ie ue üe⟩ word benutted ewen füer opensilbeforlangering.

[bradrn]

Naʼos ner rGyerman magiwu…
[naʔˌos.neʒ.ʒɟeɾ.man.ma.ɟiˈwu]
naʼos ner r-Gyerman ma-gi-w·u
someone even ACC-German NEG-can-AUX·speak

Not all of us can speak German…

[Travis B.]

Naʼos ner rGyerman magiwu…
[naʔˌos.neʒ.ʒɟeɾ.man.ma.ɟiˈwu]
naʼos ner r-Gyerman ma-gi-w·u
someone even ACC-German NEG-can-AUX·speak

Not all of us can speak German…

Andskuldiging, ik wulde witten, of jeman kunde forstaan, wat ik heb seggen sonder en üwersetting.
Sorry, I wanted to know whether anyone could figure out what I said without a translation.

[jal]

Not all of us can speak German…

Looks more like some low German than high German though...


JAL