Conlang Random Thread

[Zju]

Now that I have thought more about it, these may be just alienable vs. inalienable nouns. Still haven't read the paper fully, though, so those maybe a different thing still in Hiw.

[jal]

help me decide how to sort my glyphs

I think you should sort it in a way that is easy to visually identify (as opposed to something that needs memorization). It's a bit difficult though, without more information, to know what method that would be based on the examples you present.


JAL

[Jonlang]

My absolute favourite article along these lines: http://alex.francois.online.fr/data/Ale ... -in-Lg.pdf. I think every conlanger should read it. (I’ve already linked it a handful of times here.)

Reading that paper, I honestly wonder doesn't English also have strong and weak nouns? Cf.:

* Word is missing.
A word is missing.

Father is missing.
A father is missing.

Granted, they'd have different syntactic functions than those in Hiw (as father can be modifier in NP).

This is really interesting. I wonder if there are any non-kin terms which act as ‘strong nouns’ in English?

Like 'school'? How we can say "school was boring" rather than "the school was boring"?

[Zju]

How crazy would it be if <ɹ> was capitalised as <L>?

[Raholeun]

How crazy would it be if <ɹ> was capitalised as <L>?

Quite strange if the language has no /r/ to be capitalised as <R>.

[Zju]

It does have <r R> and no <l> - the rhotics are <r ɹ>, pronounced more or less as the respective IPA letters.

[Creyeditor]

Why not ꓤ? Or at least ⅃? You could also use L l in general, which is similar to some Romanizations of Tamil.

[Pabappa]

Reading that paper, I honestly wonder doesn't English also have strong and weak nouns? Cf.:

* Word is missing.
A word is missing.

Father is missing.
A father is missing.

Granted, they'd have different syntactic functions than those in Hiw (as father can be modifier in NP).

This is really interesting. I wonder if there are any non-kin terms which act as ‘strong nouns’ in English?

Like 'school'? How we can say "school was boring" rather than "the school was boring"?

good point but one might argue that there are two different things going on here .... the ones that refer to people are able to be used as standalone nouns because theyre titles, which can be used as terms of address. Note that we can say e.g. "Father John", "Mother Mary", etc and yes i know those are both confined to religious usage but then think of "Grandma Corey", "Uncle Tom", etc where we can see that they really are titles.

The thing with school, bed, etc is different .... those, I dont know what to call them, but they seem to line up well with the usage of "in school", "in bed", "at work", etc where there is no article required before the word either.,

[jal]

The thing with school, bed, etc is different .... those, I dont know what to call them, but they seem to line up well with the usage of "in school", "in bed", "at work", etc where there is no article required before the word either.,

With "school" it's a distinction between "institution" and "building". "I'm in the school" means you're in the building, while "I'm in school" means you're enroled in the institution. With "bed", without an article it's also the concept of bed, or what a bed stands for, rather than the physical location. So the article-less nouns refer to concepts rather than actual physical objects.


JAL

[Pabappa]

mmmm .... i dont know .... first of all, sorry, I had only 4 hrs of sleep last night, and while that's usually enough for me ,I've noticed something's quite off about me today. that said, while Im not sure about my own post up above, i still would say that "in bed" and "in school" both refer to physical locations even without the article. for one thing, almost nobody says "in the bed" in any context, and "in the school" is decidedly marked compared to the articleless form.

it's also not just confined to that one preposition. we also say "go to bed", "go to school" ....."during gym" ... "before work", "after school" etc ..... always without the articles. school classes at least also appear without the articles, but Im not sure what to make of that since it may just be aphesis for "physics class" etc.

[jal]

i still would say that "in bed" and "in school" both refer to physical locations

Not much, no. You could say "in bed" when you're in any bed, without the one you're talking to knows what bed you're in. "In school" also needn't refer to a specific school, even though both you and the listener could know what school is being referred to. So the physical location is a side-issue, it's about what happens at that location what's the focus.

almost nobody says "in the bed" in any context

Sure, but "on the bed" is fine, while "on bed" would be odd. So it's a fixed collocation, which also shows its special status.

and "in the school" is decidedly marked compared to the articleless form.

So? People refer much more to the whole going-to-school thing than the physical building. That's not strange at all.

it's also not just confined to that one preposition. we also say "go to bed", "go to school"

I'm pretty sure that back when you were young, when your mom told you to "go to bed" that she didn't mean you had to move yourself to a physical location close to bed and be done with it. It means undressing, putting on your p-jays, brushing your teeth, and so on. So it's a set expression, again nothing strange going on. As for "go to school" it's perhaps less obvious, or rather, I wouldn't know what the semantic difference would be compared to e.g. "go to the supermaket". Language is weird :). That said, there was an article in a recent issue of the Dutch Language Society's magazine about a development in Dutch, where "work" (in Dutch not a mass noun like in English) is losing its article in "go to work" ("naar werk gaan"). It was explained as following other article-less constructions (Dutch mirrors English with "bed" and "school") and frequent use.

....."during gym" ... "before work", "after school" etc ..... always without the articles.

"Work" is a mass noun, so it never gets an article. But surely in "after school" it's very clear it's not the physical location that's meant, but the "time at school".


JAL

[aliensdrinktea]

Say a language has two writing systems (which I'll call A and B). A is the official script, while B is a cursive handwritten script. The two scripts do not visually resemble one another.

Would it be plausible for B to displace A as the "main" script (i.e., the standard script for books, storefronts, advertisements, etc.) without entirely replacing B? Could such a shift happen after the development of the printing press? (That's my main concern, because the need for separate initial/medial/final letterforms would necessarily complicate printing. Maybe the convenience of digital technology would spark the change?)

[aliensdrinktea]

i still would say that "in bed" and "in school" both refer to physical locations even without the article. for one thing, almost nobody says "in the bed" in any context, and "in the school" is decidedly marked compared to the articleless form.

With "school" at least, there's definitely a semantic difference between the two forms. The staff of a school are in the school but not in school. On the contrary, I'll be in school in a few weeks—but not in the school; I'll be at home, attending classes virtually.

"Bed" is a more complicated case, because like you said, no one really says "in the bed", but I could see a situation arising where the distinction is needed. E.g., if a group of people (for whatever reason had to share a hotel room with only one bed, "so-and-so's in the bed" calls attention to the bed itself and the fact that it is occupied, while "so-and-so's in bed" (in any context) is instead an assertion about the person's current state, which we conceptualize as "in bed".

it's also not just confined to that one preposition. we also say "go to bed", "go to school" ....."during gym" ... "before work", "after school" etc ..... always without the articles.

"During gym" is a perfect example of how article-less forms refer to concepts: during gym means "during gym class", not "while I was in/at the gym"—and gym class need not take place in a gymnasium. "During gym" wouldn't tell you much about location at the private school I used to attend—gym class was held either outdoors or indoors, depending on the weather. What's more, it was a small school that didn't even have a gymnasium; on an indoor-gym day, anything that happened during gym, during lunch, or during assembly happened in the same room; the word choice calls attention to context rather than location.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Playing with retaining the case system of Old French in an Oïl language. Given the setting, gender wouldn't really be a... thing, but that aside, reanalysing feminines as masculines, most nouns ending in consonants would collapse into a paradigm, maintaining -s (usually [z̪]) in the nominative singular, a null ending for the nominative plural, and the oblique forms reversed, such that:

Nom.: li jardeins [l̪i ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz] | li jardein [l̪i ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː]
Obl.: le jardein [l̪ɛ ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː] | les jardeins [l̪ɛ ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz]

In structural words, terminal consonants are often lost before consonant-initial words, note les arbres [l̪ɛz̪͜ 'aɾ̪.bɾ̪ɛz̪].

I think this can be expanded through contraction of the articles with other particles:

Gen: di jardeins [d̪i ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz] | di jardein [d̪i ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː]
Lat: ai jardeins [ɛː ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz] | ai jardein [ɛː ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː]
Abl.: du jardein [dʒy ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː] | des jardeins [d̪ɛ ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz] (but des arbres, [d̪ɛz̪͜ 'aɾ̪.bɾ̪ɛz̪])
Loc: au jardein [oː ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː] | aux jardeins [oː ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː] (but aux arbres [oːz̪͜ 'aɾ̪.bɾ̪ɛz̪])

The indefinite articles might, from there, also develop their own paradigm:

Nom.: une [y.n̪ə~yːn̪]
Obl: ein [ɛ̃ː]
Gen: de, d' [d̪ɛ~d̪]
Abl: dein [d̪ɛ̃ː]
Lat: an [ãː]
Loc: dan [dãː]

Nouns ending in vowels would treat -s (again, usually [z̪]) as a plural marker, but use the same articles:

Nom.: li merçoi [l̪i mæɾ̪'s̪o̯a] | li merçois [l̪i mæɾ̪'s̪o̯ɛz̪]
Obl.: le merçoi [l̪ɛ mæɾ̪'s̪o̯a] | les merçois [l̪ɛ mæɾ̪'s̪oː.ɛz̪] (but les amis [l̪ɛz̪͜ a.miːz̪])

And so on, being analogised to the formerly feminine paradigm, regardless of original gender.

Nouns ending in -ere (usually [æːɾ̪] before vowels or in isolation, or [ɛ.ɾ̪ə] before consonants) have all forms other than the nominative singular in -iour [juːɾ̪] or -iours [juːɾ̪z̪], following the -s placement of other consonant-ending nouns:

Nom.: li chantere [l̪i ʃã(ː)'t̪æːɾ̪~l̪i ʃã(ː)'t̪ɛ.ɾ̪ə] | li chantiour [l̪i ʃã(ː)'t̪juːɾ̪]
Obl.: le chantiour [l̪ɛ ʃã(ː)'t̪juːɾ̪] | les chantiours [l̪ɛ ʃã(ː)'t̪juːɾ̪z̪]

And so on, inheriting an Old French alternation between -ere, -eor; monosyllables such as pere and frere function as ordinary vowel-stem nouns, but polysyllabic nouns are often analogised, li lumiere, li lumiour, li vergere, li vergiour and so on, even where the -er(e) was not originally an agentive suffix from which it was originally derived.

Nouns in -être and -aître [ɛː.tɾ̪ə] have non nominative singular endings in -(v)oire [(v)oæɾ̪~(v)oɛ.ɾ̪ə] and voires [(v)oɛ.ɾ̪əz̪]

Nom: li prêtre [l̪i pɾ̪ɛː.tɾ̪ə] | li prevoire [l̪i pɾ̪ə'voæɾ̪~l̪i pɾ̪ə'voɛ.ɾ̪ə]
Obl.: le prevoire [lɛ pɾ̪ə'voæɾ̪~l̪i pɾ̪ə'voɛ.ɾ̪ə] | les prevoires [l̪ɛ pɾ̪ə'voɛ.ɾ̪əz̪]

Such nouns often have unpredictable non-nominative-singular stems: li fenêtre, li fenoir (a regularised form li founoire, li founoires also exists), li maître, li maîtoire, être, atoire and so on.

I doubt anything like it would have developed in our world, but if it were dropped into a void and let on its own, I think there's a chance case could make a rebound. If nothing else, I had fun making it do so ~artificially~.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Playing with retaining the case system of Old French in an Oïl language. Given the setting, gender wouldn't really be a... thing, but that aside, reanalysing feminines as masculines, most nouns ending in consonants would collapse into a paradigm, maintaining -s (usually [z̪]) in the nominative singular, a null ending for the nominative plural, and the oblique forms reversed, such that:

Nom.: li jardeins [l̪i ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz] | li jardein [l̪i ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː]
Obl.: le jardein [l̪ɛ ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː] | les jardeins [l̪ɛ ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz]

In structural words, terminal consonants are often lost before consonant-initial words, note les arbres [l̪ɛz̪͜ 'aɾ̪.bɾ̪ɛz̪].

I think this can be expanded through contraction of the articles with other particles:

Gen: di jardeins [d̪i ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz] | di jardein [d̪i ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː]
Lat: ai jardeins [ɛː ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz] | ai jardein [ɛː ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː]
Abl.: du jardein [dʒy ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː] | des jardeins [d̪ɛ ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ːz] (but des arbres, [d̪ɛz̪͜ 'aɾ̪.bɾ̪ɛz̪])
Loc: au jardein [oː ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː] | aux jardeins [oː ʒaɾ̪'d̪ɛ̃ː] (but aux arbres [oːz̪͜ 'aɾ̪.bɾ̪ɛz̪])

The indefinite articles might, from there, also develop their own paradigm:

Nom.: une [y.n̪ə~yːn̪]
Obl: ein [ɛ̃ː]
Gen: de, d' [d̪ɛ~d̪]
Abl: dein [d̪ɛ̃ː]
Lat: an [ãː]
Loc: dan [dãː]

Nouns ending in vowels would treat -s (again, usually [z̪]) as a plural marker, but use the same articles:

Nom.: li merçoi [l̪i mæɾ̪'s̪o̯a] | li merçois [l̪i mæɾ̪'s̪o̯ɛz̪]
Obl.: le merçoi [l̪ɛ mæɾ̪'s̪o̯a] | les merçois [l̪ɛ mæɾ̪'s̪oː.ɛz̪] (but les amis [l̪ɛz̪͜ a.miːz̪])

And so on, being analogised to the formerly feminine paradigm, regardless of original gender.

Nouns ending in -ere (usually [æːɾ̪] before vowels or in isolation, or [ɛ.ɾ̪ə] before consonants) have all forms other than the nominative singular in -iour [juːɾ̪] or -iours [juːɾ̪z̪], following the -s placement of other consonant-ending nouns:

Nom.: li chantere [l̪i ʃã(ː)'t̪æːɾ̪~l̪i ʃã(ː)'t̪ɛ.ɾ̪ə] | li chantiour [l̪i ʃã(ː)'t̪juːɾ̪]
Obl.: le chantiour [l̪ɛ ʃã(ː)'t̪juːɾ̪] | les chantiours [l̪ɛ ʃã(ː)'t̪juːɾ̪z̪]

And so on, inheriting an Old French alternation between -ere, -eor; monosyllables such as pere and frere function as ordinary vowel-stem nouns, but polysyllabic nouns are often analogised, li lumiere, li lumiour, li vergere, li vergiour and so on, even where the -er(e) was not originally an agentive suffix from which it was originally derived.

Nouns in -être and -aître [ɛː.tɾ̪ə] have non nominative singular endings in -(v)oire [(v)oæɾ̪~(v)oɛ.ɾ̪ə] and voires [(v)oɛ.ɾ̪əz̪]

Nom: li prêtre [l̪i pɾ̪ɛː.tɾ̪ə] | li prevoire [l̪i pɾ̪ə'voæɾ̪~l̪i pɾ̪ə'voɛ.ɾ̪ə]
Obl.: le prevoire [lɛ pɾ̪ə'voæɾ̪~l̪i pɾ̪ə'voɛ.ɾ̪ə] | les prevoires [l̪ɛ pɾ̪ə'voɛ.ɾ̪əz̪]

Such nouns often have unpredictable non-nominative-singular stems: li fenêtre, li fenoir (a regularised form li founoire, li founoires also exists), li maître, li maîtoire, être, atoire and so on.

I doubt anything like it would have developed in our world, but if it were dropped into a void and let on its own, I think there's a chance case could make a rebound. If nothing else, I had fun making it do so ~artificially~.

A nice path to a Romance conlang with cases would be Latin that switches from penultimate to final stress. This way you would see reduced initial syllabes but preserved final ones

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I suppose it would, but that really wouldn't be my objective. I've been using this one as a substratum for another one.

[Richard W]

Say a language has two writing systems (which I'll call A and B). A is the official script, while B is a cursive handwritten script. The two scripts do not visually resemble one another.

Would it be plausible for B to displace A as the "main" script (i.e., the standard script for books, storefronts, advertisements, etc.) without entirely replacing B? Could such a shift happen after the development of the printing press? (That's my main concern, because the need for separate initial/medial/final letterforms would necessarily complicate printing. Maybe the convenience of digital technology would spark the change?)

Your question seems muddled, but in Egyptian, hieroglyphs+hieratic was largely but not entirely replaced by demotic, which was even more of a 'running' script that the former two.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Can case ending be protected from disappearane by adding inflected pronouns or demonstratives at the end of the word?

[jal]

Can case ending be protected from disappearane by adding inflected pronouns or demonstratives at the end of the word?

Case endings tend to disappear when they lack stress and/or are eroded by sound changes, and the language makes up for a more rigid syntax to compensate (though I suppose the syntax will automatically compensate). Adding enclitics will probably safeguard against the most common types of erosion, but they may trigger sound changes as well that may hasten the demise of case endings. For example:

akto - dog (nom)
aktok - dog (acc)
-te - I
goma - see (1st person singular)

goma aktokte
goma akto-k-te
see dog-ACC-1s
"I see the dog"

Then we have a sound change kt > tt > t and we end up with:

goma ato-te
see dog-1s

Gone is the ACC marker...


JAL

[Otto Kretschmer]

Can case ending be protected from disappearane by adding inflected pronouns or demonstratives at the end of the word?

Case endings tend to disappear when they lack stress and/or are eroded by sound changes, and the language makes up for a more rigid syntax to compensate (though I suppose the syntax will automatically compensate). Adding enclitics will probably safeguard against the most common types of erosion, but they may trigger sound changes as well that may hasten the demise of case endings. For example:

akto - dog (nom)
aktok - dog (acc)
-te - I
goma - see (1st person singular)

goma aktokte
goma akto-k-te
see dog-ACC-1s
"I see the dog"

Then we have a sound change kt > tt > t and we end up with:

goma ato-te
see dog-1s

Gone is the ACC marker...


JAL

I was thinking in the context of Latin in which ille evolved into a case marking rather than definite article

Something like
NOM puella
GEN puellae illus
DAT puellae illi
ACC puellam illam
ABL puella illa

And what this may yield in daughter languages