If natlangs were conlangs

[Kuchigakatai]

Swahili:
anaita 'he/she calls'
haiti 'he/she doesn't call'

ameshaita 'he/she has already called'
hajaita 'he/she hasn't called yet'

Somebody should tell the creator of Swahili that one of the golden rules of conlanging is that a negative verbal inflection should always have a greater length than its positive counterpart, or at the very least the same length, not less. Certainly not the present tense of all things!

[Vijay]

I see no reason why that should be a rule.

[Kuchigakatai]

I see no reason why that should be a rule.

My post above contains sarcastic commentary on a common conlanger meme. (This entire thread from the first post in page one is sarcastic commentary on common conlanger memes.) Naturally among natlangs there is a very strong tendency for negative forms to be longer than their corresponding positive ones, but it's not a hard and fast rule.

[Vijay]

I doubt it's even that strong of a tendency but okay.

[Kuchigakatai]

I doubt it's even that strong of a tendency but okay.

What are some other languages or language families, outside Bantu I suppose, where positive verbs are often longer than negated verbs? Germanic/Romance/Slavic/Hellenic languages, Eskimo-Aleut languages, Pipil Nawat, Chinese languages, Semitic languages and Ju|'hoan have longer negative verbs.

Celtic languages with their positive initial particles and Burmese with its positive final particles are interesting because positive sentences are sometimes about equally long as their negative version, but even then negation is not shorter than positive polarity.

I'd like to know of any other examples.

[Vijay]

The only reason why they're longer in Swahili anyway is because tense isn't marked on negative verbs unless they're in past tense, whereas it's marked on positive verbs unless they're in the subjunctive mood or possibly habitual aspect. Tamil is a bit like this; the tense distinction for negative verbs is future vs. non-future, plus person isn't marked on non-future negative forms, so this can result in the positive form being longer than the negative one, e.g. வருகிறீர்கள் varukiReerkaL 'you (pl. or polite) are coming' vs. வரவில்லை varavillai 'I/you/he/she/it/we/y'all/they are coming/won't come'. In Malayalam, 'that's enough' could be anything from മതി [məˈd̪i] to അത് മതിയാണ് [əˈd̪ɯ məd̪iˈjaːɳɯ], whereas 'that isn't enough' is just പോരാ [poːˈɾaː].

Also ameshaita is kind of a weird example since it is etymologically two words amekwisha kuita, literally 's/he has finished' + 'to call', and AFAICT only the latter is used in the written language. That seems a bit like saying that whatchagunnado? is longer than what won't you do?

For that matter, even in the languages you mentioned: he has lots of toys is longer in English than he has no toys. He got a lotta toys is longer than he ain't got no toys. French has positive plus either the same length as or longer than negative plus.

[Kuchigakatai]

The only reason why they're longer in Swahili anyway is because tense isn't marked on negative verbs unless they're in past tense, whereas it's marked on positive verbs unless they're in the subjunctive mood or possibly habitual aspect. Tamil is a bit like this; the tense distinction for negative verbs is future vs. non-future, plus person isn't marked on non-future negative forms, so this can result in the positive form being longer than the negative one, e.g. வருகிறீர்கள் varukiReerkaL 'you (pl. or polite) are coming' vs. வரவில்லை varavillai 'I/you/he/she/it/we/y'all/they are coming/won't come'. In Malayalam, 'that's enough' could be anything from മതി [məˈd̪i] to അത് മതിയാണ് [əˈd̪ɯ məd̪iˈjaːɳɯ], whereas 'that isn't enough' is just പോരാ [poːˈɾaː].

That's interesting! Do you know any historical reason for why the future negative form doesn't mark person? (I'm assuming you meant "plus person isn't marked on future negative forms", since you translated varavillai as 'won't come', probably also intending 'aren't coming' before that.)

Also ameshaita is kind of a weird example since it is etymologically two words amekwisha kuita, literally 's/he has finished' + 'to call', and AFAICT only the latter is used in the written language. That seems a bit like saying that whatchagunnado? is longer than what won't you do?

Eh, I'd still count the colloquial reduced form... It seems to be productive for most verbs. Can you say "whatchagunna assume he said during the meeting?" in English? Even if we don't count it though, the main source of my surprise was the anaita - haita pair.

For that matter, even in the languages you mentioned: he has lots of toys is longer in English than he has no toys. He got a lotta toys is longer than he ain't got no toys. French has positive plus either the same length as or longer than negative plus.

I think "he has toys"/"he's got toys" is the positive counterpart of "he has no toys"/"he's got no toys", but I really like the French example for the adverbial sense of plus [ply]. I'm not sure if positive plus [plys] is really its opposite, but I'd buy the disyllabic toujours and encore as its opposites, which are clearly longer.

Il étudie toujours l'hébreu.
[il etyˈdi tuˈʒuːʁ l eˈbʁø]
'He still studies Hebrew.'

Il étudie plus l'hébreu. (with informal ne-dropping)
[il etydi ˈply l eˈbʁø]
'He doesn't study Hebrew anymore.' ~ 'He no longer studies Hebrew.'

[Vijay]

Do you know any historical reason for why the future negative form doesn't mark person? (I'm assuming you meant "plus person isn't marked on future negative forms", since you translated varavillai as 'won't come', probably also intending 'aren't coming' before that.)

No, I meant non-future. I should have translated varavillai as both 'aren't coming' (EDIT: plus 'am not coming' and 'isn't coming') and 'didn't come'. I got confused because Malayalam uses -/illa/ in all three tenses and the form that varavillai looks closest to in Malayalam means 'won't come'. Apparently, Tamil lost the person-agreement suffixes over time but only for the non-future forms (Old Tamil did have suffixes in its own non-future forms, and negative forms in future tense are still marked for person in Tamil today). Malayalam pretty much lost those suffixes altogether.

Can you say "whatchagunna assume he said during the meeting?" in English?

Sure.

[Xwtek]

Let's see how Tambora language is extinct: A volcano erupts and kills every Tambora speakers. You must be kidding me.

[Richard W]

Let's see how Tambora language is extinct: A volcano erupts and kills every Tambora speakers. You must be kidding me.

Maybe it didn't, but if there aren't enough left to reform a community, the language is dead, even if the last speaker dies 40 years later.

[Salmoneus]

Let's see how Tambora language is extinct: A volcano erupts and kills every Tambora speakers. You must be kidding me.

Well, actually volcanos are famously good at killing people. After Krakatoa, for example, the only lifeform explorers were able to find in the Krakatoa achipelago was a single spider. [Krakatoa itself, of course, was actually uninhabited by people at the time, but it demonstrates the power nonetheless].

Indeed, entire empires and civilisations have been wiped out by volcanos (and accompanying tidal waves). It's widely thought that the most powerful and sophisticated empire in Europe, at one point, was obliterated at least in part by a volcano (with invaders and migrants finishing the job), leading to the extinction of one of the first written European languages.

[quinterbeck]

Indeed, entire empires and civilisations have been wiped out by volcanos (and accompanying tidal waves). It's widely thought that the most powerful and sophisticated empire in Europe, at one point, was obliterated at least in part by a volcano (with invaders and migrants finishing the job), leading to the extinction of one of the first written European languages.

Which empire was this?

[bradrn]

Indeed, entire empires and civilisations have been wiped out by volcanos (and accompanying tidal waves). It's widely thought that the most powerful and sophisticated empire in Europe, at one point, was obliterated at least in part by a volcano (with invaders and migrants finishing the job), leading to the extinction of one of the first written European languages.

Which empire was this?

The Minoans, I presume. (Although I don’t think they were an empire…)

EDIT: Indeed, Salmoneus says “empires and civilisations”. The Minoans are an example of the latter, but not the former.

[zompist]

It's still debated whether the Thera explosion finished off the Minoans.

Assuming the reference is to the Minoans, "the most powerful and sophisticated empire in Europe" is a bit tricky, since at the time it was the only civilization in Europe, and restricted to Crete and some of the islands.

[Xwtek]

Then the maker of the conworld is inconsistent. Why the Samalas eruption didn't finish off Sasak people?

[mèþru]

I'm pretty sure the Minoan collapse didn't "finish" them off, just like the Mayan peoples weren't finished off by the Mayan collapse. I think Minoans were "finished off" by Greeks and perhaps (other) Sea Peoples.

[Salmoneus]

...please note that I explicitly said the volcano "in part" destroyed them but that the job was "finished off" by invaders and/or immigrants.

In so far as I understand the situation, the consensus is that the ash and tsunami devastated the civilisation; many settlements show extensive damage and some were abandoned. It didn't wipe out the entire race, because some settlements do show rebuilding afterward, but there's no sign that the empire as a whole was reestablished and, tellingly, there's a sudden increase in signs of Mycenaean presence after the volcano. So the most likely scenario is as I said: the volcano devastated the nation, leaving it vulnerable to mass migration (probably hostile, but potentially in part invited) by non-Minoans, which, either violently or through cultural domination, rapidly extinguished Minoan language and culture.


Xwtek: well, it apparently destroyed Pamatan. Do we actually know what language was spoken in Pamatan? Do we even know for sure that the Sasak were there at that time? If so, perhaps the Sasak covered the whole island, while the Tambora only lived in one town on their island?
In any case, damage from volcanos is extremely contingent - a lot can depend on which flank (if any) of the mountain fails (lava, avalanches) and which way the wind is blowing (ash, pumice). Herculaneum was destroyed by lava; Pompeii, by ash; other settlements in the area probably escaped relatively unharmed.

[axolotl]

I had a whole rant typed up over Sakao, but I accidentally refreshed the page, so here's an abbreviated version (which is probably for the better, honestly).

Sakao is what happens when someone decides to create their own version of Tolomako during the creation of the Austronesian project, while high on who-even-knows-what the entire time, with a sound change addiction approaching that of the creator of modern Tibetan.

- The syllable structure of the southern dialect is undefined. Words like /mhɛrtpr/, /rðjœɣ/, and /nmɣœ/ are all permissible.
- Meanwhile, the northern dialect has extensive vowel epenthesis, which has become phonemic and behaves almost like vowel harmony. The southern dialect's /nmɣœ/ is rendered as /œmœɣœɛ/ in the north.
- Speaking of vowels, Sakao has 14: /a ɛ e i œ ø y ɒ ɔ o u ɨ œɛ ɒɔ/.
- Sakao's only trill is voiceless.
- The former article, /na/, has become fused to nouns. In the south dialect, all nouns (except inalienably possessed ones, or nouns that are otherwise "already definite") begin with /n/. In the north dialect, all monosyllabic nouns begin with /n/, while all polysyllabic nouns begin with a vowel (as the /n/ has been lost).
- Seven degrees of deixis. Seven.
- Common nouns are not inflected for number, but for some reason kinship terms are, because apparently it's really important to know if I'm talking about my aunt (/ðjœɣ/) or my aunts (/rðjœɣ/).
- Tolomako is highly isolating, with no tense or aspect marking on verbs whatsoever. Sakao has extensive aspect marking and verb incorporation.
- And lastly, here are some cognates, to demonstrate how ridiculous the phonetic evolution is:
"four" - Sakao: /jɛð/ - Tolomako: /βati/
"to blow" - Sakao: /hy/ - Tolomako: /suβi/

[Vijay]

Yeah, I know that Swahili and Zulu are both Bantu languages, but that does not mean that Zulu can just take Arabic loanwords out of Swahili!

EDIT:

Seven degrees of deixis. Seven.

Pffft, that's just Malagasy.

Welcome, by the way!

[bradrn]

I had a whole rant typed up over Sakao, but I accidentally refreshed the page, so here's an abbreviated version (which is probably for the better, honestly).

Sakao is what happens when someone decides to create their own version of Tolomako during the creation of the Austronesian project, while high on who-even-knows-what the entire time, with a sound change addiction approaching that of the creator of modern Tibetan.

- The syllable structure of the southern dialect is undefined. Words like /mhɛrtpr/, /rðjœɣ/, and /nmɣœ/ are all permissible.
- Meanwhile, the northern dialect has extensive vowel epenthesis, which has become phonemic and behaves almost like vowel harmony. The southern dialect's /nmɣœ/ is rendered as /œmœɣœɛ/ in the north.
- Speaking of vowels, Sakao has 14: /a ɛ e i œ ø y ɒ ɔ o u ɨ œɛ ɒɔ/.
- Sakao's only trill is voiceless.
- The former article, /na/, has become fused to nouns. In the south dialect, all nouns (except inalienably possessed ones, or nouns that are otherwise "already definite") begin with /n/. In the north dialect, all monosyllabic nouns begin with /n/, while all polysyllabic nouns begin with a vowel (as the /n/ has been lost).
- Seven degrees of deixis. Seven.
- Common nouns are not inflected for number, but for some reason kinship terms are, because apparently it's really important to know if I'm talking about my aunt (/ðjœɣ/) or my aunts (/rðjœɣ/).
- Tolomako is highly isolating, with no tense or aspect marking on verbs whatsoever. Sakao has extensive aspect marking and verb incorporation.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Especially the syllable structure.

- And lastly, here are some cognates, to demonstrate how ridiculous the phonetic evolution is:
"four" - Sakao: /jɛð/ - Tolomako: /βati/
"to blow" - Sakao: /hy/ - Tolomako: /suβi/

Do you have any idea what the sound changes are? I’d like to see how those are related!