Conlang Random Thread

[jal]

Because they’re usually more marked?

Uhm... no, my whole point was that nouns that are predominantly used accustively, are not more marked in the accusative.


JAL

[bradrn]

Because they’re usually more marked?

Uhm... no, my whole point was that nouns that are predominantly used accustively, are not more marked in the accusative.


JAL

Right, that makes sense. I didn’t notice you were talking about specifically accusative nouns.

[Richard W]

Also, I don't see why inherently "accusative" nouns, i.e. nouns that'll often appear in the accusative (like manipulated objects) wouldn't be shorter than their nominative counterparts.

Does this depend on what case is used for describing things, e.g. applying adjectives or stative verbs?

An odd case is English, where the accusative is now the unmarked case for pronouns.

[Xwtek]

The problem is in my language, agentive and patientive case is only marked in animate noun. Inanimate noun only receives adverbial marking (i.e. ranges from Instrumental, Locative, and -ly) or patientive case. So, the noun isn't even predominantly used patientively. To be fair, nouns don't receive agentive case unless they have a control about the action. (Exception: verb that is marked causative or beneficial applicative wants the subject to be agentive).

[Richard W]

The problem is in my language, agentive and patientive case is only marked in animate noun. Inanimate noun only receives adverbial marking (i.e. ranges from Instrumental, Locative, and -ly) or patientive case. So, the noun isn't even predominantly used patientively. To be fair, nouns don't receive agentive case unless they have a control about the action. (Exception: verb that is marked causative or beneficial applicative wants the subject to be agentive).

Are animates used in the unmarked form? I suspect that this unmarked form may be the naturally unmarked form (absolutive?), in which case the only oddity is having agentive, absolutive and patientive - rather like late Sanskrit's instrumental, nominative and accusative in the past tense. This oddity is a minority taste, but it's well attested and has been quite common in Indo-Iranian - apparently orthogenetic.

[Xwtek]

The problem is in my language, agentive and patientive case is only marked in animate noun. Inanimate noun only receives adverbial marking (i.e. ranges from Instrumental, Locative, and -ly) or patientive case. So, the noun isn't even predominantly used patientively. To be fair, nouns don't receive agentive case unless they have a control about the action. (Exception: verb that is marked causative or beneficial applicative wants the subject to be agentive).

Are animates used in the unmarked form? I suspect that this unmarked form may be the naturally unmarked form (absolutive?), in which case the only oddity is having agentive, absolutive and patientive - rather like late Sanskrit's instrumental, nominative and accusative in the past tense. This oddity is a minority taste, but it's well attested and has been quite common in Indo-Iranian - apparently orthogenetic.

The agentive is originally the unmarked form. And the patientive is originally the marked form (with -i). However, -i causes stress shift and umlaut before it get deleted. In words in form CVCVC where the first two consonant is a voiceless consonant, -i causes first vowel to be dropped, forming CCVC because stress falls in second syllable. However, in agentive noun, CVCVC has no vowel elision (except if the first vowel is high. Apparently in Kayardild, even stressed vowel can be reduced) because stress falls in first syllable. If the two original syllable have different tone, the second syllable is lengthened. (This language doesn't have contour tone in short syllable). Otherwise, it remained short. The adverbial case is marked with -ĩk, and unlike -i, the suffix survived.
,

[Richard W]

The agentive is originally the unmarked form. And the patientive is originally the marked form (with -i). However, -i causes stress shift and umlaut before it get deleted. In words in form CVCVC where the first two consonant is a voiceless consonant, -i causes first vowel to be dropped, forming CCVC because stress falls in second syllable. However, in agentive noun, CVCVC has no vowel elision (except if the first vowel is high. Apparently in Kayardild, even stressed vowel can be reduced) because stress falls in first syllable. If the two original syllable have different tone, the second syllable is lengthened. (This language doesn't have contour tone in short syllable). Otherwise, it remained short. The adverbial case is marked with -ĩk, and unlike -i, the suffix survived.

That reminds me of Hebrew absolute /davar/ 'word' and construct /dvar/. One normally thinks of the absolute as the unmarked from in Hebrew.

[mèþru]

Well every native root in Hebrew is kind of marked in some way - the unmarked form is the bare root that doesn't occur on its own. I'd use the term "default" instead.

[Xwtek]

Is it realistic if my conlang has a contrast between /kʷa/, /kɯa/, and /kʷɯa/?

My language doesn't have /u/.

Also, is it realistic if my language have the nasality spreads through [w] (that comes from b) and [r], but not [l] and [w] (that never comes from /b/)?

So the hypothetical /kɯbã/ is read [kɯ̃w̃ã] but /kuwã/ is read [kɯwã]?

[Pabappa]

Both of those sound fine although I'd think the /ʷɯ/ sequence would be phonetically close to [ʷu] if there is no contrasting bare /u/. It looks like you even have some plans for an allophonic [ u] unless that second question is for a different language... also, I think the following /a/ isnt necessary .... a three-way contrast between /kʷ/, /kɯ/, and /kʷɯ/ is almost certainly found somewhere in the world.

[Xwtek]

Both of those sound fine although I'd think the /ʷɯ/ sequence would be phonetically close to [ʷu] if there is no contrasting bare /u/. It looks like you even have some plans for an allophonic [ u] unless that second question is for a different language... also, I think the following /a/ isnt necessary .... a three-way contrast between /kʷ/, /kɯ/, and /kʷɯ/ is almost certainly found somewhere in the world.

The allophonic [u] is a typo, though (/ɯ/ is written as <u> in standard orthography). My plan is actually to make /ɯ/ turn into /u/ next to labialized velar. The /a/ is necessary, because the only diphthong that combines with /ɯ/ in this language is /a/.

[Zaarin]

a three-way contrast between /kʷ/, /kɯ/, and /kʷɯ/ is almost certainly found somewhere in the world.

Disregarding the choice of vowel, Mohawk distinguishes /kʷ kʷo ko kʷũ kũ/, bearing in mind that both /ʷ/ and /ũ/ are rather flat in Mohawk (cf. Japanese).

[Kuchigakatai]

Well every native root in Hebrew is kind of marked in some way - the unmarked form is the bare root that doesn't occur on its own. I'd use the term "default" instead.

The terms marked/unmarked are typically applied to individual words of a specific word class, not roots. What you call "default" is what people mean when they say "unmarked". In Hebrew, the consonant sequence of the root cannot be said to be unmarked by definition because it doesn't occur.

Looking at Spanish verbs, it is a bit unclear which form is least marked, the infinitive (nadar 'swim', soñar 'dream') or the 3SG present ~ tú-2SG imperative (nada, sueña), but both are clearly less marked than the likes of 3PL conditional nadarían/soñarían. In all these cases the root and stem are nad- and soñ-/sueñ-.

I suppose you *could* make a case for the existence of "marked/unmarked" roots in Spanish, because of the use of learned root variants borrowed from Latin which could be thought of as marked: natación '(the art of) swimming' has the variant nat- and somnífero 'sleep powder' has the variant somn-. But this is not commonly done at all.

[Pabappa]

From L&L:

In spoken Japanese I've sometimes heard something like [ḵ] or maybe even [q] for /k/. It's at best sporadic, but it still seems like an odd unconditional shift.

Is it unconditional? Descriptions of Japanese that I've read mention extensive conditioned allophony between palatalized and non-palatalized versions of consonants; e.g. the Wikipedia article on Japanese phonology includes the transcription [ɡẽŋʲkʲi]. I would expect backing or uvularization of /k/ to be less common or absent in the environments that condition palatalization (i.e. I'd expect it to be most common in syllables like /ka/ or /ko/, and least common in syllables like /ki/ or /kja/).

I've read that /A/ is the backmost vowel, not /u/ like I'd thought. I could do this in Late Andanese, whose phonology contains only 30 syllables, and therefore have 3 allophones of /k/. Then the vowels could be dropped in rapid speech without much confusion. I already use the same idea for the allophones of /h/, but it didn't occur to me to extend it to the stop.

On the other hand, three contrasting allophones of / ŋ/ likely won't work so well. Fortunately ŋ is rare.

[jal]

On the other hand, three contrasting allophones of / ŋ/

Allophones are by definition not contrasting?


JAL

[Travis B.]

On the other hand, three contrasting allophones of / ŋ/

Allophones are by definition not contrasting?

I think Pabappa means distinct. E.g. vowel length and, except for one case in an interjective, vowel nasalization are not phonemic in my English, but there exists audible distinctions for them (because they communicate information about other surrounding phonemes).

[masako]

seko saye puani nahayo yalaye ma ke tsa’eto omoye
scorpion along bank river-GEN walk-PST and TOP across-way think-PST

haye seko ke tsola anyaye
sudden scorpion TOP fox see-PST

seko nya tsa’e naha amo ua’e muta tsolayo kanyoye
scorpion for across river carry on back fox-GEN ask-PST

tsola kye ak na’eta amo yo ta’ena kute nuesitli
fox IND.SP COP.NEG 1s-P.2s carry then 2s-P.1s sting drown-FUT

seko kye na’eta kute yo nam nuesitli
scorpion IND.SP 1s-P.2s sting then 1PL drown-FUT

tsola pue omo nkataye
fox after think agree-PST

ya seko ua’e muta tsolayo uayaye ma tsola yokomuye
VOC scorpion on back fox-GEN climb and fox swim-begin-PST

me tsa’etsohue nahayo seko ke tsola kuteye
however across-half-LOC river-GEN scorpion TOP fox sting-PST

tsola naye sunu ke sila hayo yeno ka’e seko muka
fox while poison TOP vein 3s.POSS fill toward scorpion face

kye nyo ta’ena kuteye ka
IND.SP reason 2s-P.1s sting-PST Q

ima ta nuesitli
now 2s drown-FUT

seko kye na’i ke to nayo tlinapayek
scorpion IND.SP 1s.REFL TOP way 1s.POSS stop-able-PST.NEG


A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side.
Suddenly, he saw a fox.
He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river.
The fox said, “No. If I do that, you’ll sting me, and I’ll drown.”
The scorpion assured him, “If I do that, we’ll both drown.”
The fox thought about it and finally agreed.
So the scorpion climbed up on his back, and the fox began to swim.
But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him.
As poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said,
“Why did you do that? Now you’ll drown, too.”
“I couldn’t help it,” said the scorpion. “It’s my nature.”

Corrected some of the vocabulary and grammar, also never put this into Omyatloko before.

Previous version was in Naua.

[jal]

Very nice script :).


JAL

[missals]

Based on some sign language reading I've been doing - some sign languages have auxiliary verbs used in certain circumstances that mark person agreement. One way they may be used is to mark person on a verb whose phonological form blocks marking of subject or object agreement.

I'm now imagining a sign language where every verb is accompanied by an agreement auxiliary (one of perhaps several auxiliaries that whose distribution is based on various criteria), perhaps kind of like Basque and its finite verbs, with the result that verbs of all phonological forms can be marked for person (if semantic and syntactic criteria permit/call for it).

[malloc]

It seems remarkably difficult for me to devise a conscript that follows the featural principle like hangul that also feels aesthetically satisfying. Expressing the phonemic features as transparently as possible results in something awkward and repetitive, particularly since not all shapes combine equally well with diacritics. Yet focusing on aesthetics obscures the featural components or complicates their mechanics to the point that the script hardly feels featural anymore.