Conlang Random Thread

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I, too, am curious.

[Kuchigakatai]

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.

I don't understand what you mean by "progressively instead of regressively", but this reminds me something Legion once suggested. People seem to generally make conlangs evolve while having a result in mind (if they aren't creating the earlier language backwards), but another way of doing it would be to just apply some sound languages for a 300-400 year stage, see what happens in the vocabulary and word forms in terms of distribution, new clusters, phonemic alternations, etc., and proceed to apply new sound changes based on this information for another 300-400 year stage, and so see what gets to happen again. If some phoneme happens to become less common, maybe that suggests proceeding to eliminate it. If it becomes more common, maybe that's a good time to add allophones or apply a split...

And this applies to morphology too, in terms of determining when to eliminate an affix, or reinforce it with a longer alternative (e.g. the Romanian pluperfect, which in the plural reflects the Latin suffix -āsse- reinforced with the Latin suffix -erā-: -aserăm, -aserăți, -aseră; contrast Spanish -ásemos, áseis, asen < -āssēmus -āssētis -āssent).

[Rounin Ryuuji]

People seem to generally make conlangs evolve while having a result in mind (if they aren't creating the earlier language backwards)...

I think this is generally done with full awareness, and because the language has some artistic purpose or desired phonoaesthetic.

but another way of doing it would be to just apply some sound languages for a 300-400 year stage, see what happens in the vocabulary and word forms in terms of distribution, new clusters, phonemic alternations, etc., and proceed to apply new sound changes based on this information for another 300-400 year stage, and so see what gets to happen again. If some phoneme happens to become less common, maybe that suggests proceeding to eliminate it. If it becomes more common, maybe that's a good time to add allophones or apply a split...

And this applies to morphology too...

This would be an interesting approach, and I'm sure some people do use it.

[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.

Example(s) please?

Most sound changes where C₁VC₂ > C₂: would be a good example. Generally this is analyzed as actually being something more like QC₂ in Japanese, but in the right circumstances, I don't see why a group couldn't compress things like that as C₁(Q/:). This would also give me some instances of /r:/ which I've wanted this conlang to have anyway and is not found in standard Japanese. I'd also no longer have -TE or -TA form in the verbs but would have regularly derived forms with the same functions, or whatever functions I decide they take on in the future.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

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?

Most sound changes where C₁VC₂ > C₂: would be a good example. Generally this is analyzed as actually being something more like QC₂ in Japanese, but in the right circumstances, I don't see why a group couldn't compress things like that as C₁(Q/:). This would also give me some instances of /r:/ which I've wanted this conlang to have anyway and is not found in standard Japanese.

You mean something like the adnominal of verbs in -ru (which I believe would've been -ruru in Old Japanese) collapsing to -rru /rːu/? I don't see why this couldn't happen.

I'd also no longer have -TE or -TA form in the verbs but would have regularly derived forms with the same functions, or whatever functions I decide they take on in the future.

I also don't necessarily think these were inevitable. Classical and Old Japanese had regularly-derived forms (the past tense in -ta is also a relatively recent innovation, the classical Past Tense was -ki or -keri, with the distinction being whether it was firsthand knowledge or something the speaker had heard, I believe). It's a little surprising, in my mind, that the same analogical process that reverted verbs from /oː/ to /au/ (as kau, au) didn't also revert yonde to yomite, and so on. The -i- stem does survive uncollapsed as part of the -masu conjugation, too.

[linguistcat]

...
You mean something like the adnominal of verbs in -ru (which I believe would've been -ruru in Old Japanese) collapsing to -rru /rːu/? I don't see why this couldn't happen.

...
I also don't necessarily think these were inevitable. Classical and Old Japanese had regularly-derived forms (the past tense in -ta is also a relatively recent innovation, the classical Past Tense was -ki or -keri, with the distinction being whether it was firsthand knowledge or something the speaker had heard, I believe). It's a little surprising, in my mind, that the same analogical process that reverted verbs from /oː/ to /au/ (as kau, au) didn't also revert yonde to yomite, and so on. The -i- stem does survive uncollapsed as part of the -masu conjugation, too.

Thank you for reminding me about the Classical past tense markers, though those only change the details of the sound changes I'm considering. I was thinking more like:

- Instead of traditional yodan verbs (p)u and ru verbs becoming -tte in the TE form, they would become -ppe and -rre respectively. -ku verbs, instead of becoming -ite becomes -kke.
- T(s)u would remain the same as it would still become -tte.
- I have other thoughts for -mu, -nu*, -bu and -gu verbs.

* -nu was traditionally irregular, so not yodan but I'm planning to make a "nasalized" class, but I'm not certain what I want to do with that yet.

Likewise, traditional yodan verbs (p)u and ru verbs would become -ppi/-pperi and -rri /-rreri**, -ku verbs become -kki/-kkeri. T(s)u would become -tti/-tteri.

** These forms may change further because I don't like them as much and especially -rreri feels a little awkward to say.

These sound changes wouldn't be limited to just verbs, let alone just yodan verbs, but these were the easiest examples. Similarly, the name for the country assuming they derive it the same name and don't call it something completely different from the irl Japanese population would be something like /nit:on/.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Thank you for reminding me about the Classical past tense markers, though those only change the details of the sound changes I'm considering. I was thinking more like:

- Instead of traditional yodan verbs (p)u and ru verbs becoming -tte in the TE form, they would become -ppe and -rre respectively. -ku verbs, instead of becoming -ite becomes -kke.
- T(s)u would remain the same as it would still become -tte.

Oh, I see what you mean now — where you have an "illegal" clustering, the second element assimilates to the first rather than the other way round, as actual Japanese does.

I have other thoughts for -mu, -nu*, -bu and -gu verbs.

* -nu was traditionally irregular, so not yodan but I'm planning to make a "nasalized" class, but I'm not certain what I want to do with that yet.

When in doubt, for my own project, I often throw it into the category parallel to shimo nidan (most of the auxiliaries end up there, and a huge number of verbs in -(f)u and -yu do, too).

Likewise, traditional yodan verbs (p)u and ru verbs would become -ppi/-pperi and -rri /-rreri**, -ku verbs become -kki/-kkeri. T(s)u would become -tti/-tteri.

** These forms may change further because I don't like them as much and especially -rreri feels a little awkward to say.

That's the one classical form of which I'm not that fond. In my own project, I swapped the forms derived from what I assume to have been *-ki ari to ki nite (the modern forms in that language being -きにて ki nite, or more usually -きで kide, dialectally also -きんで kinde)

These sound changes wouldn't be limited to just verbs, let alone just yodan verbs, but these were the easiest examples. Similarly, the name for the country assuming they derive it the same name and don't call it something completely different from the irl Japanese population would be something like /nit:on/.

Do they still have the heavy sinitic borrowing that would be necessary for such a lexical item to exist?

[linguistcat]

When in doubt, for my own project, I often throw it into the category parallel to shimo nidan (most of the auxiliaries end up there, and a huge number of verbs in -(f)u and -yu do, too).

I'd love to hear what you mean by parallel, but I do like the idea of verbs ending with -yu getting their own little grouping along with a few other verb endings.

Likewise, traditional yodan verbs (p)u and ru verbs would become -ppi/-pperi and -rri /-rreri**, -ku verbs become -kki/-kkeri. T(s)u would become -tti/-tteri.

** These forms may change further because I don't like them as much and especially -rreri feels a little awkward to say.

That's the one classical form of which I'm not that fond. In my own project, I swapped the forms derived from what I assume to have been *-ki ari to ki nite (the modern forms in that language being -きにて ki nite, or more usually -きで kide, dialectally also -きんで kinde)

I can see how that would develop, and I'll consider other options for my own language.

Do they still have the heavy sinitic borrowing that would be necessary for such a lexical item to exist?

Yes, that still occurs in my alternate timeline, and if anything this speech group would have more familiarity with Middle Chinese before they settle in the Japanese archipelago.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

When in doubt, for my own project, I often throw it into the category parallel to shimo nidan (most of the auxiliaries end up there, and a huge number of verbs in -(f)u and -yu do, too).

I'd love to hear what you mean by parallel, but I do like the idea of verbs ending with -yu getting their own little grouping along with a few other verb endings.

I don't use the Japanese terms to refer to the verb classes in my own project (though they don't have internal names half the time), but there's a class that's clearly of the same lineal descent as the shimo nidan verbs of Classical Japanese.

Likewise, traditional yodan verbs (p)u and ru verbs would become -ppi/-pperi and -rri /-rreri**, -ku verbs become -kki/-kkeri. T(s)u would become -tti/-tteri.

** These forms may change further because I don't like them as much and especially -rreri feels a little awkward to say.

That's the one classical form of which I'm not that fond. In my own project, I swapped the forms derived from what I assume to have been *-ki ari to ki nite (the modern forms in that language being -きにて ki nite, or more usually -きで kide, dialectally also -きんで kinde)

I can see how that would develop, and I'll consider other options for my own language.

Old Japanese is wonderfully full of auxiliaries, isn't it?

Do they still have the heavy Sinitic borrowing that would be necessary for such a lexical item to exist?

Yes, that still occurs in my alternate timeline, and if anything this speech group would have more familiarity with Middle Chinese before they settle in the Japanese archipelago.

Ah, I'm not very good at making alternate timelines myself. Does this familiarity mean there are fewer on'yomi (if the concept even exists), or more of them?

[linguistcat]

Ah, I'm not very good at making alternate timelines myself. Does this familiarity mean there are fewer on'yomi (if the concept even exists), or more of them?

Probably fewer, but also some that are specific to their use. Also probably would have their own name for that reading. I have enough of a time trying to remember the common readings for kanji irl. I don't want to add to my suffering if it's not necessary.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Ah, I'm not very good at making alternate timelines myself. Does this familiarity mean there are fewer on'yomi (if the concept even exists), or more of them?

Probably fewer, but also some that are specific to their use. Also probably would have their own name for that reading. I have enough of a time trying to remember the common readings for kanji irl. I don't want to add to my suffering if it's not necessary.

I've been coming up with a lot of terms for verbal terms lately, on this note. We should probably compare our verb conjugation tables sometime.

[Ahzoh]

I'm debating if Vrkhazhian should contrast a voiced latfric (voiceless latfric also exists) with a voiced latapprox or if latfric and latapprox should be in complimentary distribution.

[Man in Space]

I'm debating if Vrkhazhian should contrast a voiced latfric (voiceless latfric also exists) with a voiced latapprox or if latfric and latapprox should be in complimentary distribution.

If you’re seeking recommendations, my vote is for the latter.

[Ahzoh]

I'm debating if Vrkhazhian should contrast a voiced latfric (voiceless latfric also exists) with a voiced latapprox or if latfric and latapprox should be in complimentary distribution.

If you’re seeking recommendations, my vote is for the latter.

If I do that I might feel suit to do the same with /z/ and /r/ (trill or flap)

Or I could make it like one of the 8 languages of the world with lateral obstruents but no /l/

[Man in Space]

I'm debating if Vrkhazhian should contrast a voiced latfric (voiceless latfric also exists) with a voiced latapprox or if latfric and latapprox should be in complimentary distribution.

If you’re seeking recommendations, my vote is for the latter.

If I do that I might feel suit to do the same with /z/ and /r/ (trill or flap)

I will double down in light of this new information because that’s really cool.

[Ahzoh]

Is there anything in the phonetic/articulatory nature of /ɮ/ that makes it unstable and more likely to become /l/? For comparison /ɢ/ is unstable due to uvulars causing retracted tongue root and voicing causing advanced tongue root as well as the interacting nature between voicing and air travel time in the mouth.

[Man in Space]

Is there anything in the phonetic/articulatory nature of /ɮ/ that makes it unstable and more likely to become /l/? For comparison /ɢ/ is unstable due to uvulars causing retracted tongue root and voicing causing advanced tongue root as well as the interacting nature between voicing and air travel time in the mouth.

I'm afraid I do not know this offhand.

From Invincible S1E08, "Where I Really Came From":

Táag hae téh da lár ĝus łn ted signa?
force that do thing this.PROX 1SG 2SG what concerning
Why did you make me do this?

Sáorsí łn ión, łántá genr isarí ü n adasar men łn nó!
fight 2SG because can watch PL/death DEF GEN PL/person all.NEAR 2SG therefore
You're fighting so you can watch everyone around you die!

Dehr, o Marga!
think VOC Mark
Think, Mark!

Kahto dahsar î madáma gïhtes łá kandá tölú ro ir lé êu lárí łn!
endure being beyond all.of.these.MED fragile and.N PROPERTY significance NEG RFLX.PTCP on extend this.NEAR 2SG
You'll outlast every fragile, insignificant being on this planet.

Töhír genr hae olahta ir êu lárí öd ḫuú hé lü ḫn łn!
live see SUB crumble RFLX.PTCP extend this.NEAR and.S blow 3SG 4 away 2SG
You'll live to see this world crumble to dust and blow away!

Auól adasar łá ad hae érí łn!
be.absent PL/person and.N PL/thing SUB know 3PL 2SG
Everyone and everything you know will be gone!

Uarág ted łn dúnki késög ténḫo gûrm hór?
have what 2SG five after hundred MW year?
What will you have after five hundred years?

[foxcatdog]

I'm debating if Vrkhazhian should contrast a voiced latfric (voiceless latfric also exists) with a voiced latapprox or if latfric and latapprox should be in complimentary distribution.

Notation is a problem but if its any help in how to represent them i have *ł, *l, and *ɭ for the current draft of Lecai with the first representing a voiceless lateral fricative the next one representing the voiced fricative and the final one representing a tap. I also used the same system for the Fox language with *ɫ for the approximant (it doesn't have a lateral tap).

[Ahzoh]

I'm debating if Vrkhazhian should contrast a voiced latfric (voiceless latfric also exists) with a voiced latapprox or if latfric and latapprox should be in complimentary distribution.

Notation is a problem but if its any help in how to represent them i have *ł, *l, and *ɭ for the current draft of Lecai with the first representing a voiceless lateral fricative the next one representing the voiced fricative and the final one representing a tap. I also used the same system for the Fox language with *ɫ for the approximant (it doesn't have a lateral tap).

One of the major reasons I have against distinguishing /ɮ l/ is that I already have troubles coming up with words containing /z/ and use /s/ or /r/ too much.

Part of it is also how I perceive and thus pattern latfrics; when I hear and think about /ɬ ɮ/, I think and hear about it the way I hear /ʃ ʒ/ ("shibilanty") and not like /s z/ (not "sibilanty"), yet at the same time I don't like representing /ɮ/ with z-like graphemes, except maybe <ž> (like /ʒ/)

I'm also trying to follow the way that linguists romanize Mesopotamian and Semitic languages (e.g. <ḫ> for /x/)

[foxcatdog]

One of the major reasons I have against distinguishing /ɮ l/ is that I already have troubles coming up with words containing /z/ and use /s/ or /r/ too much.

Part of it is also how I perceive and thus pattern latfrics; when I hear and think about /ɬ ɮ/, I think and hear about it the way I hear /ʃ ʒ/ ("shibilanty") and not like /s z/ (not "sibilanty"), yet at the same time I don't like representing /ɮ/ with z-like graphemes, except maybe <ž> (like /ʒ/)

I'm also trying to follow the way that linguists romanize Mesopotamian and Semitic languages (e.g. <ḫ> for /x/)

You can notate them however you want. Just giving what i did.