Conlang Random Thread

[Pabappa]

To me the main difference seems to be whether Tapilula /tʷ/ turns into /tʰw/→/w/→/∅/ or /tʷ/→/kw/→/p/. Unless that somehow depends on the presence of /ɡ/?

yes, and whether /pʰ/ > /f/ or not. the /g/ (which is IPA [ɣ]) controls whether the /ə̀i/ diphthong becomes a monophthongal /e/ or just remains as /ə̀gi/, and this affects the stress pattern ..... the prosody of the word is fixed, so the number of syllables changes which morphmes are stressed ... and this affects aspiration, because two syllables in a row cant be both aspirated, and this puts the other changes into effect.

[Ahzoh]

I want to work on my conlang but I hate my case system but I literally can't think of anything else

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Perhaps then the case system is something you ought to be doing?

[Ahzoh]

Perhaps then the case system is something you ought to be doing?

I hate my case system but I literally can't think of anything else

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I meant you should create a new one.

[Ahzoh]

I meant you should create a new one.

I know, I can't think of a better one

Cases aren't as simple as coming up with a diarrhea of morphemes and applying them, it has to be appropriate with the language, aesthetically, phonetically, and morphologically.

[bradrn]

I want to work on my conlang but I hate my case system but I literally can't think of anything else

What exactly is the current case system? And what about it do you hate?

[Ahzoh]

I want to work on my conlang but I hate my case system but I literally can't think of anything else

What exactly is the current case system? And what about it do you hate?

Which looks kinda fine (even though I have uncertainties about all the cases being single consonants), but then it starts looking weird when you get sentences like:

Muwam amtīt rēbīt sağğalīt eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk altin.
[muˈwɒm ɒmˈtiːt rɛːˈbiːt sɒɣ.ɣɒˈliːt ɛxˈxuːk ɬiˈmuːk sʼɒ.bɒːˈsuːk mɒn.nɒˈbuːk ˈɒl.tin]
"You saw how many men in these four beautiful houses?"

Also I don't like the /t/ for accusative but I can't find good consonants to replace it. Although I also feel like I shouldn't since I've had a morpheme like t(u) (either as prefix or suffix) to represent the accusative for a long time.

[bradrn]

Which looks kinda fine (even though I have uncertainties about all the cases being single consonants), but then it starts looking weird when you get sentences like:

Muwam amtīt rēbīt sağğalīt eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk altin.
[muˈwɒm ɒmˈtiːt rɛːˈbiːt sɒɣ.ɣɒˈliːt ɛxˈxuːk ɬiˈmuːk sʼɒ.bɒːˈsuːk mɒn.nɒˈbuːk ˈɒl.tin]
"You saw how many men in these four beautiful houses?"

What’s weird about that? If it’s the repetition of similar endings in eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk, my first instinct is to say that natlangs have similar sorts of repetition all the time. But I suppose that if that’s what’s bothering you, you have two main options: (a) add some consonant and vowel alternations so not all instances of the same case have the same ending, or (b) split up the cases into more specific ones so that one case doesn’t cover quite so many semantic relations.

EDIT: Also, a gloss would be much appreciated.

[Man in Space]

Which looks kinda fine (even though I have uncertainties about all the cases being single consonants), but then it starts looking weird when you get sentences like:

Muwam amtīt rēbīt sağğalīt eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk altin.
[muˈwɒm ɒmˈtiːt rɛːˈbiːt sɒɣ.ɣɒˈliːt ɛxˈxuːk ɬiˈmuːk sʼɒ.bɒːˈsuːk mɒn.nɒˈbuːk ˈɒl.tin]
"You saw how many men in these four beautiful houses?"

. . .add some consonant and vowel alternations so not all instances of the same case have the same ending. . . .

1. Ahzoh, that is a fantastic example sentence. I'm reading it in the voice of that guy from the Talking Heads.
2. Why not have some sort of harmony/disharmony in the suffixes? Or maybe a "checksum consonant" in some areas?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Also, if you don't want all the things to agree, you could use something akin to the Japanese te-form, so that a string of words ending in whatever ending (e.g. [noun].TE [noun].TE [noun].NOM = [noun].NOM [noun].NOM [noun].NOM); you could also have separate morphemes for nouns, adjectives, and other parts of speech.

[bradrn]

Also, if you don't want all the things to agree, you could use something akin to the Japanese te-form, so that a string of words ending in whatever ending (e.g. [noun].TE [noun].TE [noun].NOM = [noun].NOM [noun].NOM [noun].NOM); you could also have separate morphemes for nouns, adjectives, and other parts of speech.

But Japanese -te is specifically a subordinate converb form, is it not? Which explains why it inherits its head’s grammatical categories, as with most subordinate forms. I have trouble imagining a language with a specific ‘copy ending’ form for nouns: repeated nouns with the same ending are just too rare, and when they do exist there’s no motivation for grouping them together.

[jal]

The only thing against this is that it seems too regular.

Which looks kinda fine (even though I have uncertainties about all the cases being single consonants), but then it starts looking weird when you get sentences like:
Muwam amtīt rēbīt sağğalīt eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk altin.

Without a gloss it's difficult to see what's going on, or suggest something better. Also, "You saw how many men in these four beautiful houses?" seems like a very convoluted and unnatural thing to say, I'd try translating more natural every day speech.


JAL

[Ahzoh]

The only thing against this is that it seems too regular.

I can't change the vowels because they're part of the stem, they're like Indo-European thematic vowels in a way.

Have I thought about declension classes? Sure, but the entire issue is that I have great difficulty coming up with affixes. That's also why modifiers (adjectives, determiners, etc.) have the same endings as nouns. There also aren't enough cases to create syncretism and the four cases that do exist do the work of six or more. The most irregular thing I can do with the case system is merge singular and plural when it comes to nouns whose stem ends in a vowel, such as mazûm "sea" (< *maziy-u-m).

Without a gloss it's difficult to see what's going on, or suggest something better. Also, "You saw how many men in these four beautiful houses?" seems like a very convoluted and unnatural thing to say

The gloss isn't relevant at all, since the matter isn't what the words mean but that you have successions of nouns ending in the same consonants and it's a very awkward rhythm.

But if I must:
Muwam amtīt rēbīt sağğalīt eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk almu.
2fs-NOM how_many-M.PL.ACC man-M.PL.ACC old-M.PL.ACC PROX-F.PL.LOC house-F.PL.LOC four-F-PL.LOC beautiful-F.PL.LOC NFUT-see\ACT-2fs

I'd try translating more natural every day speech.

This is natural everyday speech. Mind you, in English we'd rather say "How many old men did you see inside these four beautiful houses"
But this case system is for the literary language register, so it's not meant for everyday speech anyways.

[bradrn]

But if I must:
Muwam amtīt rēbīt sağğalīt eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk almu.
2fs-NOM how_many-M.PL.ACC man-M.PL.ACC old-M.PL.ACC PROX-F.PL.LOC house-F.PL.LOC four-F-PL.LOC beautiful-F.PL.LOC NFUT-see\ACT-2fs

Ah, OK, so the problem is case concordance. Personally I don’t think that repetition is as much of a problem if it comes from concordance; cf. Bantu noun class agreement: kikapu kikubwa kimoja kilianguka ‘one large basket fell’ (Swahili: Corbett 1991, Welmers 1973, quoted in Aikhenvald 2000).

Have I thought about declension classes? Sure, but the entire issue is that I have great difficulty coming up with affixes. That's also why modifiers (adjectives, determiners, etc.) have the same endings as nouns.

Alas, if you want to avoid this, I suspect you will have to get better at coming up with affixes. (And I say this as someone with the same difficulty.) Honestly, I just choose random phonemes a lot of the time; so far no-one’s noticed. Another thing you might do is slightly modify existing affixes: if nouns take -m/-t/-s/-k, then maybe adjectives take -n/-k/-ɬ/-ɣ or something.

There also aren't enough cases to create syncretism

Why not? For one thing, merging nominative and accusative is perfectly well-attested on low-animacy nouns (attested with e.g. the IE neuter). It also strikes me as very reasonable to merge the accusative and instrumental.

The most irregular thing I can do with the case system is merge singular and plural when it comes to nouns whose stem ends in a vowel, such as mazûm "river" (< *maziy-u-m).

I like this! You should do it.

I'd try translating more natural every day speech.

This is natural everyday speech. Mind you, in English we'd rather say "How many old men did you see inside these four beautiful houses"
But this case system is for the literary language register, so it's not meant for everyday speech anyways.

It doesn’t strike me as being particularly natural, especially ‘those four beautiful houses’. Natural speech tends to avoid overspecifying nouns, so in practise people would most probably say ‘those houses’, or possibly ‘those four houses’ or ‘those beautiful houses’. Note how this would also get rid of the repetition. That being said, such a sentence may be less unusual in a literary context.

[jal]

I can't change the vowels because they're part of the stem, they're like Indo-European thematic vowels in a way.

You have of course every right to do what you want, but since you're the language creator you can change vowels if need be, and of course there's this pesky thing called sound changes that wreaks havoc wherever it goes...

That's also why modifiers (adjectives, determiners, etc.) have the same endings as nouns.

A pretty lame excuse, imho :D. Again, I'd look into sound changes and perhaps erode the suffixes on the adjectives etc. a bit to avoid this repetition.

The gloss isn't relevant at all

If you want people to help you, it's not wise to scold them for wanting more insight into the language.

This is natural everyday speech

Unless there's some alien poets having conversations like this, no it's not. It's a typical grammar example sentence. Humans tend to leave out what's already know, and there's just too much new information in that sentence. The "these four beautiful houses" contains so much specific info, as if there's also a different number of beautiful houses, there's also non-beautiful houses, and to top it also some other four beautiful houses more down the road.

But this case system is for the literary language register, so it's not meant for everyday speech anyways.

That's fine, but that also means there's less problems with the repititions (other than estetically).


JAL

[Rounin Ryuuji]

But Japanese -te is specifically a subordinate converb form, is it not? Which explains why it inherits its head’s grammatical categories, as with most subordinate forms. I have trouble imagining a language with a specific ‘copy ending’ form for nouns: repeated nouns with the same ending are just too rare, and when they do exist there’s no motivation for grouping them together.

Etymologically, yes, but now I think it's just an inflection. I was thinking it might be achieved by absorbing an article on the end of the noun (postnominal articles and particles are certainly attested). You could also do it by absorbing a conjunction similar to "and", which word seems to get very eroded very easily.

[bradrn]

But Japanese -te is specifically a subordinate converb form, is it not? Which explains why it inherits its head’s grammatical categories, as with most subordinate forms. I have trouble imagining a language with a specific ‘copy ending’ form for nouns: repeated nouns with the same ending are just too rare, and when they do exist there’s no motivation for grouping them together.

Etymologically, yes, but now I think it's just an inflection.

Well, as it happens I’ve just finished reading a chapter on Japanese in Haspelmath’s Converbs, and certainly the authors analyse it as a converb. Anyway, how exactly does one distinguish a ‘converb’ from a ‘just an inflection’?

I was thinking it might be achieved by absorbing an article on the end of the noun (postnominal articles and particles are certainly attested). You could also do it by absorbing a conjunction similar to "and", which word seems to get very eroded very easily.

Now that is a very interesting and clever idea. The only reason I can think of why this wouldn’t work is that the relevant relation in eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk is modifier-modified, rather than coordination.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

But Japanese -te is specifically a subordinate converb form, is it not? Which explains why it inherits its head’s grammatical categories, as with most subordinate forms. I have trouble imagining a language with a specific ‘copy ending’ form for nouns: repeated nouns with the same ending are just too rare, and when they do exist there’s no motivation for grouping them together.

Etymologically, yes, but now I think it's just an inflection.

Well, as it happens I’ve just finished reading a chapter on Japanese in Haspelmath’s Converbs, and certainly the authors analyse it as a converb. Anyway, how exactly does one distinguish a ‘converb’ from a ‘just an inflection’?

Given that Japanese tends to be a heavily inflected language, and that there is some morphological oddness to the formation of te-forms:

-u, -tsu, -ru (when -ru is a godan ending) > -tte
-nu, -bu, -mu > -nde
-ku > -ite
-gu > -ide
-su > -shite

With the verbs kuru, suru, and iku having irregular forms kite, shite, and itte. They're also, as I hear it, pronounced as part of the same word, usually part of a fairly predictable paradigm (Japanese doesn't have many irregular verbs, or much suppletion, and the possibly unexpected formations above happen regularly). Even before, I'm not sure I would've called -te a coverb — think I might've misunderstood what that meant, too, -tsu, -te it was originally an auxiliary verb, albeit one of apparently fairly long use. I suppose the difference between an auxiliary and a coverb is that an auxiliary can usually be further inflected (negation in Japanese essentially appends an auxiliary "adjective" — -nai originally meant, if I understand right, "not exist", and is the suppletive negative of aru now — to the end of the negative stem of the verb), while -te doesn't have (to my knowledge, at least) forms like -*tereba or -*tenai (though a negative equivalent, -nakute or -naide does exist, I would consider that an inflection of -nai; -nakute IS the expected te-form of -nai, in fact).

I was thinking it might be achieved by absorbing an article on the end of the noun (postnominal articles and particles are certainly attested). You could also do it by absorbing a conjunction similar to "and", which word seems to get very eroded very easily.

Now that is a very interesting and clever idea. The only reason I can think of why this wouldn’t work is that the relevant relation in eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk is modifier-modified, rather than coordination.

Once it went through semantic bleaching and became an auxiliary word, I don't think this would matter, and it would help with the perceived repetitiveness especially if it gets absorbed in all sorts of irregular ways, like a stem ending in -k becomes -ng-, but one ending in -s became -r (presumably by way of some sort of -z in-between), and one in -n had a stress change (assuming the original word was something like -an or -na).

[bradrn]

Etymologically, yes, but now I think it's just an inflection.

Well, as it happens I’ve just finished reading a chapter on Japanese in Haspelmath’s Converbs, and certainly the authors analyse it as a converb. Anyway, how exactly does one distinguish a ‘converb’ from a ‘just an inflection’?

Given that Japanese tends to be a heavily inflected language, and that there is some morphological oddness to the formation of te-forms:

-u, -tsu, -ru (when -ru is a godan ending) > -tte
-nu, -bu, -mu > -nde
-ku > -ite
-gu > -ide
-su > -shite

With the verbs kuru, suru, and iku having irregular forms kite, shite, and itte. They're also, as I hear it, pronounced as part of the same word, usually part of a fairly predictable paradigm (Japanese doesn't have many irregular verbs, or much suppletion, and the possibly unexpected formations above happen regularly). Even before, I'm not sure I would've called -te a coverb — think I might've misunderstood what that meant, too, -tsu, -te it was originally an auxiliary verb, albeit one of apparently fairly long use. I suppose the difference between an auxiliary and a coverb is that an auxiliary can usually be further inflected (negation in Japanese essentially appends an auxiliary "adjective" — -nai originally meant, if I understand right, "not exist", and is the suppletive negative of aru now — to the end of the negative stem of the verb), while -te doesn't have (to my knowledge, at least) forms like -*tereba or -*tenai (though a negative equivalent, -nakute or -naide does exist, I would consider that an inflection of -nai; -nakute IS the expected te-form of -nai, in fact).

I’m not entirely sure why you talk about auxiliaries here, given that there is very little similarity between converbs and auxiliaries. (Coverbs and auxiliaries, possibly. And some Turkic languages allow converbal forms as auxiliary complements. But they’re not particularly similar.) Though as always there are numerous competing definitions, my understanding is that a converb is a subordinate verb form specialised for adverbial modification or clause chaining, e.g.:

Ethan, knowing it was naughty, ate an extra cookie.
Jiro, breaking it, did not compensate for the window.
Kicking the door in and going inside, the police didn’t find anyone.

(The second example is a nearly-direct translation from a Japanese -te form; the only major difference is that the original was relativised. The last is a bit strained in English, but would work better in a language where converbs are genuinely used for clause-chaining.)

I was thinking it might be achieved by absorbing an article on the end of the noun (postnominal articles and particles are certainly attested). You could also do it by absorbing a conjunction similar to "and", which word seems to get very eroded very easily.

Now that is a very interesting and clever idea. The only reason I can think of why this wouldn’t work is that the relevant relation in eḫḫūk śimūk ṣabāsūk mannabūk is modifier-modified, rather than coordination.

Once it went through semantic bleaching and became an auxiliary word, I don't think this would matter, and it would help with the perceived repetitiveness especially if it gets absorbed in all sorts of irregular ways, like a stem ending in -k becomes -ng-, but one ending in -s became -r (presumably by way of some sort of -z in-between), and one in -n had a stress change (assuming the original word was something like -an or -na).

Please stop reminding me how terrible I am at diachronics.