An IAL

[Kuchigakatai]

I can so sense the sarcasm (Was that meant as sarcasm?)

No sarcasm! I meant that more as in the simple orthography (read: few graphemes, no accents) and morphology (no evidentiality in particular), even though some things like your SVCs and stative verbs are there as usual.

[Travis B.]

I can so sense the sarcasm (Was that meant as sarcasm?)

No sarcasm! I meant that more as in the simple orthography (read: few graphemes, no accents) and morphology (no evidentiality in particular), even though some things like your SVCs and stative verbs are there as usual.

The simple orthography, phonemic inventory, and morphology are all consequences of it being an IAL. For instance having only one series of plosive phonemes is a consequence of it being difficult to get people with different native languages to be able to clearly distinguish the same multiple full series of plosives (e.g. Mandarin speakers do not have voiced plosives natively, while Romance speakers do not have aspirated plosives natively). Also, it needs to be able to be easily typed; we cannot assume people will be able to type accented characters. As for morphology, I wonder if even having reduplication is a bit much, due to languages like Mandarin which lack morphology to speak of. (About evidentiality, the thing is this is not common enough to put in an IAL.)

[Kuchigakatai]

The simple orthography, phonemic inventory, and morphology are all consequences of it being an IAL.

Yeah! In contrast with (many of) your other conlangs. Hence my amusement.

As for morphology, I wonder if even having reduplication is a bit much, due to languages like Mandarin which lack morphology to speak of. (About evidentiality, the thing is this is not common enough to put in an IAL.)

Mandarin has some partial and full reduplication. For action verbs it tends to be a limitative (做做 zuòzuò, 做一做 zuòyizuò 'do sth for a little while, to try doing sth, do sth a little bit', from 做 zuò 'do'), and for adjectival verbs it is a rather cutesy limitative or diminutive (紅紅 hónghóng a little red, a fair bit red, from 紅 hóng 'red'). Very common in family member words (伯伯 bóbó 'uncle (father's older brother)'), manner adverbs (偷偷地 tōutōu de 'secretly, stealthily', from 偷 tōu 'to steal sth'), and onomatopoeia and such iconic words (吃吃 chīchī 'onomat. of chuckling / contained laughter', 轟隆 (simplified 轰隆) hōnglōng 'onomat. of sth rolling'; like Japanese/Korean, Mandarin is rich in these).

一列火车轰隆轰隆地驶过一座铁桥。
yí liè huŏchē hōnglōng-hōnglōng de shĭ-guò yí zuò tiĕ-qiáo
one CL train rolling_sound-rolling_sound ADV gallop-across one CL iron-bridge
'A train thundered across an iron bridge as the sound of its wheels was heard from a distance.'
(example from the LINE dictionary; CL = classifier)

It's kind of funny to square this with the Western European use of full reduplication expressing intensive meaning (mostly in adjectives, "she was angry angry", estaba enojada enojada; also "I like you like you" = love you, me gustas gustas) or stereotypes/prototypes ("it was a forum forum", i.e. a typical proper forum, not sth forum-like).

[Qwynegold]

ability	kun
desirability	suri
desire	wira
permission	maki
obligation	muta
necessity	nuti
likelihood	may

What's the difference between desirability and desire?

[Travis B.]

ability	kun
desirability	suri
desire	wira
permission	maki
obligation	muta
necessity	nuti
likelihood	may

What's the difference between desirability and desire?

"Should" versus "want".

[Qwynegold]

Oh, I see. Btw, are you doing anything with proper nouns, or is everything just gonna be the same as in the original language?

[Travis B.]

Oh, I see. Btw, are you doing anything with proper nouns, or is everything just gonna be the same as in the original language?

Proper nouns may either be translated or calqued, particularly for names of things which are transparently translatable or calqueable, and may otherwise be left as is.

[Travis B.]

The simple orthography, phonemic inventory, and morphology are all consequences of it being an IAL.

Yeah! In contrast with (many of) your other conlangs. Hence my amusement.

As for morphology, I wonder if even having reduplication is a bit much, due to languages like Mandarin which lack morphology to speak of. (About evidentiality, the thing is this is not common enough to put in an IAL.)

Mandarin has some partial and full reduplication. For action verbs it tends to be a limitative (做做 zuòzuò, 做一做 zuòyizuò 'do sth for a little while, to try doing sth, do sth a little bit', from 做 zuò 'do'), and for adjectival verbs it is a rather cutesy limitative or diminutive (紅紅 hónghóng a little red, a fair bit red, from 紅 hóng 'red'). Very common in family member words (伯伯 bóbó 'uncle (father's older brother)'), manner adverbs (偷偷地 tōutōu de 'secretly, stealthily', from 偷 tōu 'to steal sth'), and onomatopoeia and such iconic words (吃吃 chīchī 'onomat. of chuckling / contained laughter', 轟隆 (simplified 轰隆) hōnglōng 'onomat. of sth rolling'; like Japanese/Korean, Mandarin is rich in these).

一列火车轰隆轰隆地驶过一座铁桥。
yí liè huŏchē hōnglōng-hōnglōng de shĭ-guò yí zuò tiĕ-qiáo
one CL train rolling_sound-rolling_sound ADV gallop-across one CL iron-bridge
'A train thundered across an iron bridge as the sound of its wheels was heard from a distance.'
(example from the LINE dictionary; CL = classifier)

It's kind of funny to square this with the Western European use of full reduplication expressing intensive meaning (mostly in adjectives, "she was angry angry", estaba enojada enojada; also "I like you like you" = love you, me gustas gustas) or stereotypes/prototypes ("it was a forum forum", i.e. a typical proper forum, not sth forum-like).

All of these usages of reduplication you mention in Mandarin are ones that I feel like I want to adopt for this IAL, whereas I do not really feel like using the typical western European sorts of reduplication (of course, it is hard to use those at the same time as using reduplication for nominal plurality).

[Travis B.]

Resultatives

Resultative sentences are formed by placing the result stative verb immediately after the main verb, before its object. Take, for instance:

Mi ya parapa paraw kanwasa.
1S PST.PFV paint be.blue canvas.
"I painted the canvas blue."

Si ya pita karapa takito.
1S PST.PFV bite be.half taquito.
"I bit the taquito in half."

Comparatives and Superlatives

Comparatives are formed by using the verb swa in a clause whose main verb is a stative verb and with the thing being compared with being its object. Take, for instance:

Takitu ta pika swa takito ma.
taquito POSS.2S be.big than taquito POSS.1S
"Your taquito is bigger than my taquito."

Kani kay ruta swa kani ray.
dog PROX loud than dog DIST
"This dog is louder than that dog."

Attributive superlatives are formed by placing the adverb sata after the stative verb in question. Take, for instance:

Takito ta pika sata.
taquito POSS.2S be.big SUPER
"Your taquito is the biggest."

Kani kay ruta sata.
dog PROX loud SUPER
"This dog is the loudest."

Nominal superlatives are formed like attributive superlatives, but by placing si (sg.) or sya (pl.) before them as subjects. Take, for instance:

Pi yi si pika sata.
INT.INAN EQU 3S be.big SUPER
"What (inan.) is the biggest?"

Ni yi si ruta sata.
INT.ANIM EQU 3S be.loud SUPER
"Who/what (anim.) is the loudest?"

[Travis B.]

Nominalizations

In addition to nominalized clauses, nouns can be derived from verbs through the use of kutu "thing", itu "person", pyasa "place", etc. as a placeholder in a relative clause where it can be the subject, direct object, or object of an SVC. Note that when a relativized noun is in a position within a relative other than subject it is represented by a resumptive pronoun si or sya. Take, for instance:

Kutu paraw ku kolora yuyi.
thing blue EQU color good
"Blue is a nice color."

Uku ma yin pyasa si rana yin si.
child POSS.1S be.at place 3S learn be.at 3S
"My kid is at school."

[Qwynegold]

Why is there two "be.at" in the last example?

[Travis B.]

Why is there two "be.at" in the last example?

The first is the "at" of being at school, the second is the "at" of being a place one learns at.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

So more literally "My child is at the place at which one learns"?

[Travis B.]

So more literally "My child is at the place at which one learns"?

Yes.

[Qwynegold]

OK, now I understand. Are you sure it's a good idea to have that much relativization going on in an IAL?

[Travis B.]

OK, now I understand. Are you sure it's a good idea to have that much relativization going on in an IAL?

Intransitive stative verbs really are not that much different from adjectives, except they can act as the main verb, without a copula, and they can take tense when not part of an SVC. Likewise, transitive stative verbs really are not that much different from adpositions, except likewise in most cases they can act as a main verb, and they can take tense when not part of an SVC.

[Travis B.]

Starting, ending, etc.

The following may be used as main verbs or as auxiliary verbs

"start"	asimi
"end"	uwa
"finish"	pin
"continue"	porutu
"repeat", "again"	witara

[kodé]

Chiming in to say that I’m enjoying this, especially trying to figure out the etymologies. The syntax is great, especially the fluidity of categories, and I generally like the phonological and morphological minimalism.

My only comment now is that the small phoneme inventory could lead to a lot of homophones, which doesn’t seem great for an IAL. If you added /b d g/, you would have a lot more possible forms and thus less homophony. You could still have some leeway: speakers would have to make sure that /b d g/ are sufficiently lenis and /p t k/ sufficiently fortis. Of the 100 natlangs with the most speakers, I would guess at least 95 have (at least) a two-way laryngeal contrast in plosives.

[Travis B.]

Chiming in to say that I’m enjoying this, especially trying to figure out the etymologies. The syntax is great, especially the fluidity of categories, and I generally like the phonological and morphological minimalism.

My only comment now is that the small phoneme inventory could lead to a lot of homophones, which doesn’t seem great for an IAL. If you added /b d g/, you would have a lot more possible forms and thus less homophony. You could still have some leeway: speakers would have to make sure that /b d g/ are sufficiently lenis and /p t k/ sufficiently fortis. Of the 100 natlangs with the most speakers, I would guess at least 95 have (at least) a two-way laryngeal contrast in plosives.

My reason for having one series of plosives is not whether most languages have two series, because most do, but rather whether they agree as to what those two series are phonation-wise. E.g. contrast Romance, which has a primary voicing contrast, with most Sinitic languages (aside from Min languages IIRC), which have a primary aspiration contrast, and with English, which has an unholy mix of systems, based on aspiration, voicing, preceding vowel length allophony, and (pre)glottalization in different environments.

[Richard W]

But you only have syllable-initial plosives, so how English distinguishes coda occlusives is irrelevant.

However, the gap tendency depressing the frequency of late VOT front consonants and early VOT back consonants might cause problems.