Conlang Random Thread

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I don't think this is actually true, though I imagine Kana Orthography makes it feel as if it were.

...

1500 years is about the time depth from Vulgar Latin to a modern Romance Language, so I think you could well get away with producing some not-very-Japanese-esque language descended from Middle or Old Japanese in that time frame (while they're now very rarely spoken, I think, a few of those are documented to actually exist).

Yeah, I think I accepted that at the time just because I don't feel confident with sound changes generally, although I've worked with Japanese as a language in some form or another since middle school. (The first five or so were a waste as far as actual study, but that's still 20 years of some kind of familiarity!)

I have some ideas for some early changes that should push it out of the standard main island mold, and maybe keep the A/B vowels longer or collapse them differently than Standard Japanese. I should look more into Ryukyuan for that, but that's another matter.

The possibilities are there. I'll be interested in seeing what you come up with.

[Ahzoh]

I am thinking having polypersonal agreement but only for animates. I don't know how polypersonal morphemes form but I imagine I can just stack morphemes.

moresuffixes.png (29.21 KiB) Viewed 4993 times

Example sentences
malā-su-kkun
She healed them (Reallis)
na-mlā-su-kkun
She shall heal them (Commissive/Future)
ta-mlā-su-kkun
She must heal them (Directive)
mal-ât-tu-kkun
That she would heal them (Subjunctive)

tīl-nēze-kkin
I who destroyed them
na-tīl-nēze-kkin
I who shall destroy them
ta-tīl-nēze-kkin
I who must destroy them
tīl-an-nēze-kkin
I who would be the one to destroy them

[bradrn]

I am thinking having polypersonal agreement but only for animates. I don't know how polypersonal morphemes form but I imagine I can just stack morphemes.

That’s one way to do it, certainly. Perhaps more common in natlangs is for to have a single fused set of agreement affixes marking subject and object simultaneously — the alternations can be anywhere from mostly transparent to mostly opaque.

As for animacy, an alternative system could be to have a single invariant subject/object suffix for inanimate arguments, while distinguishing two subject/object suffixes for animates — or perhaps even switching to an outright ergative alignment for inanimates. (I’m sure there’s more interesting ways to do things, but at the moment I don’t have access to most of my usual sources…)

[Ahzoh]

That’s one way to do it, certainly. Perhaps more common in natlangs is for to have a single fused set of agreement affixes marking subject and object simultaneously — the alternations can be anywhere from mostly transparent to mostly opaque.

Unfortunately I lack the imagination to sound change my way to opaque polypersonal affixes.

I do have some changes due to a strong connection between stress and syllable weight which leads to fancy results:
alátti "he fought [her/him/it/them]" > alattíkkas "he fought it" (note acute accent for stress)
aláttin "they fought [her/him/it/them]" > alattī́kas "they fought it"

-tī-kas "3mp>3ns"
-na-kku "1cs>3fs"
-ta-mmi "1cp>2ms"
-tu-mmun "3fs>2fp"

[Ahzoh]

I think this is a good demonstration of my language's triconsonantal root system.

Code: Select all

       Strong   | I-y      | II-w    | III-w
NFUT : paruḫna  / yanudna  / dūlna   / nadūna
FUT1 : napruḫna / nīnudna  / nadūlna / nandūna
FUT2 : tapruḫna / tīnudna  / tadūlna / tandūna
SUBJ : parḫanna / yandanna / dūlanna / nadânna

           Strong    | I-y       | II-w     | III-w
Agent    : parāḫum   / yanādum   / dâlum    / nadûm
Patient  : parraḫum  / yannadum  / dāwalum  / naddûm
Action   : purḫas    / yundas    / dûlas    / nudâs
State    : pirḫas    / yindas    / dîlas    / nidâs
Location : parḫissas / yandissas / dūlissas / nadîssas

[bradrn]

That’s one way to do it, certainly. Perhaps more common in natlangs is for to have a single fused set of agreement affixes marking subject and object simultaneously — the alternations can be anywhere from mostly transparent to mostly opaque.

Unfortunately I lack the imagination to sound change my way to opaque polypersonal affixes.

To be clear, I don’t mean to imply that you have to do this — your current system is perfectly naturalistic as is. I just meant to give you some ideas.

[foxcatdog]

Ideas a language with a grammar very close to english but using word forms from other indo european cognates prefarably the ones which are the most distinct.

So...
"wind" becomes "áēmi"
"leaf" becomes "liber"
"wheel" becomes "cakka"
"horn" becomes "sig"
"sun" becomes "helio"
"wool" becomes "gulan/ollan/flaine/laine"
"god" becomes "zvat/hotra/futile"
"star" becomes "attar" (very speculatively related)
"die" becomes "funeral"
"day" becomes "fever"
"whale" becomes "aspalos/kara"
"fox" becomes "punch"
"butt/bottom" becomes "fundus"
"see" becomes "sign"
"sail" becomes "huil"


Usage of otherwise fanciful terms in english as regular indo european words they are cognate with is also welcome. Or even in cases where they don't share an indo european root but do share a modern meaning.

So...
"join" becomes "yoga"
"build or make" becomes "karma"
"message" becomes "angel"
"blood" becomes "iron"
"bleed/cut/attack" becomes "cruel"
"say" becomes "saga"
"arm" becomes "order"
"beast" becomes "deer" (or the reverse)

[Ahzoh]

I decided Vrkhazhian will have two future tenses that I call the "weak future" and the "strong future".
The weak future indicates futurity that the speaker deems is possible or likely but not guaranteed whereas the strong future indicates futurity that the speaker is not only certain of but intends to bring about; it is a promise or a threat.

tâlalnakkun [tɑː.ɮɑɮ.ˈnɑk.kun]
I destroyed them (Nonfuture)
tatâlalnakkun [tɑ.tɑː.ɮɑɮ.ˈnɑk.kun]
I may destroy them (Weak Future)
natâlalnakkun [nɑ.tɑː.ɮɑɮ.ˈnɑk.kun]
I shall destroy them (Strong Future)

[Zju]

So basically more or less like English 'will' vs. 'going to'?

[Ahzoh]

So basically more or less like English 'will' vs. 'going to'?

I often translate the weak future as "may/might" and the strong future as "shall".

[Travis B.]

So basically more or less like English 'will' vs. 'going to'?

I was thinking that too.

[Raphael]

So basically more or less like English 'will' vs. 'going to'?

I often translate the weak future as "may/might" and the strong future as "shall".

People still use "shall" when talking about future actions? I thought that was archaic by now.

[Travis B.]

So basically more or less like English 'will' vs. 'going to'?

I often translate the weak future as "may/might" and the strong future as "shall".

People still use "shall" when talking about future actions? I thought that was archaic by now.

Same thought here. Here the modal used to refer to facts in the future is will while the quasi-modal used to refer to things that appear like they will happen in the future but which are not fixed facts is be going to. Shall is still used, but has distinctly different connotations from will (e.g. it implies that things should be a certain way, not that they will be that way, unless used in a question, where then it has connotations of suggestion).

[Raphael]

Then again, this is the Conlang Random Thread, so using "shall" in translations from a conlang might by a conscious stylistic coice by Ahzoh.

[Ahzoh]

I often translate the weak future as "may/might" and the strong future as "shall".

People still use "shall" when talking about future actions? I thought that was archaic by now.

Same thought here. Here the modal used to refer to facts in the future is will while the quasi-modal used to refer to things that appear like they will happen in the future but which are not fixed facts is be going to. Shall is still used, but has distinctly different connotations from will (e.g. it implies that things should be a certain way, not that they will be that way, unless used in a question, where then it has connotations of suggestion).

"shall" to me has a rather strong modal flavour of volition or intention. When I talk of the strong future, I think of sentence "I will take out the trash tomorrow" which to me is a commissive statement rather than a statement of fact regarding the future.

Another sentence: "If you dare defy me again, I shall strike you down"

"if you play with fire, you might get burned" (weak)
"if you play with fire, you shall get burned" (strong)

[Travis B.]

I would say one does not normally use shall with inanimates, but I would say that it does not merely indicate volitionality but rather than it connotates that the subject is supposed to do something except when used in a question.

[Ahzoh]

I think the language is making a distinction between a deontic future and an epistemic future.

[Travis B.]

I think the language is making a distinction between a deontic future and an epistemic future.

That goes along with how English shall is a deontic future.

[linguistcat]

I realized recently that just applying certain sound changes in Japanese from Old Japanese progressively instead of regressively would greatly change the sound of the language that resulted, and likely suggest new sound changes that didn't occur in Japanese proper.

[bradrn]

I realized recently that just applying certain sound changes in Japanese from Old Japanese progressively instead of regressively would greatly change the sound of the language that resulted, and likely suggest new sound changes that didn't occur in Japanese proper.

Example(s) please?