My Conlangs

[conlangernoob]

Hi!

I thought I’d just make a thread to use for all the times I post things about my various conlangs instead of making a new thread each time.

Anyways,

conlangernoob

[JANKO GORENC]

You are very welcome!
May I ask if you have created names for your conlangs or will you create them in the future?

[conlangernoob]

Not yet. Just placeholder names, but I will.

[conlangernoob]

What do you guys think about my syntax so far:
Sentence Order: SOV
Noun Phrase Order: Nouns precede numerals, adjectives, relative clauses, in that order, while demonstratives precede nouns. Negatives are marked with prepositional phrases.
Relative clauses: Relative clauses are introduced using relative pronouns. The antecedent can only be the subject or object of the sentence. The word order in relative clauses is always SOV, and the antecedent is not removed, as in English, but replaced by the appropriate pronoun.
Negatives: Sentences are negated by adding a particle directly before the verb. Nouns can be negated with the same particle, which is treated, syntactically, like a numeral.
Questions: Questions are signaled by a rise in intonation at the end. Interrogatives remain in the same position as they would in a normal sentence.
Copulars: The zero copula is sometimes used. In the present tense, when the subject is definite and the predicate is indefinite, the subject is simply juxtaposed with its predicate. When both the subject and the predicate are definite, a pronoun (agreeing with the subject) is inserted between the two. In any other cases, the copular verb is used.
Existentials: Existentials are formed using the formula “ēyas ___”, where ___ is the thing that exists.
Conditionals: Conditionals follow the formula “gwed <condition> <outcome>” or “<outcome> gwed <condition>”. The perfect is always used, except in counterfactuals, then the irrealis is used.

It's not done obviously. Just want to hear people's thoughts. It's a proto-language, so being interesting isn’t my main goal. Mainly just trying to make high diversity possible in daughter languages.

[Zju]

Please work on formatting. Noun phrase order isn't all that clear on first reading.

which is treated, syntactically, like a numeral.

I thought numerals follow nouns? Anyway, no need to compare particles to vastly different PoS, you can just specify if the particle in question is a proclitic (preceding the head) or an enclitic (following it).

[conlangernoob]

The following is all I have so far for the reference grammar of my language, the Ancient Tongue (it’s not actually called the Ancient Tongue, it’s just a working title).

Phonology

Consonants
Voiceless Stops: /p t k/
Aspirated Stops: /pʰ tʰ kʰ/
Voiceless Stops: /b d g/
Fricatives: /s h/
Nasal: /m n/
Approximates: /r l j w r/

Vowels: /i e o ē ō a/

Phonotactics: The syllable structure of the Ancient Tongue is CCVC. The only legal clusters consist of velar plosives preceding /w/, and /s/ preceding unaspirated plosives. Codas can only be p, t, k, b, d, g, s, m, n and r.

Stress is on the penultimate syllable that doesn’t end in a consonant. Stress is shown with a rise in intonation and an increase in volume but not in length.


Morphology

Nouns: Nouns are inflected for singular, dual and plural. The singular is unmarked. The dual is marked with the suffix “-ya”. The plural is marked with the suffix “-ēr”.

Verbs: Verbs are inflected for either the perfective aspect, the imperfective aspect, and the irrealis mood. The perfective is marked as null. The imperfective is marked with the suffix “-ōs” and the irrealis is marked with the suffix “-am”. Verbs can have any of zero to three arguments, and the number is marked in the dictionary. The passive is marked with the suffix “-id”. The causative is marked with the suffix “-hi”.

Syntax

Sentence Order: SOV
Noun Phrase Order: The Ancient Tongue is strongly head-initial. Nouns precede numerals, adjectives, relative clauses, in that order, while demonstratives precede nouns. Genitives are marked with prepositional phrases.
Relative clauses: Relative clauses are introduced using relative pronouns. The antecedent can only be the subject or object. The antecedent is not removed, as in English, but replaced by the appropriate personal or demonstrative pronoun.
Negatives: Sentences are negated by adding a particle directly after the verb. Nouns can be negated with the same particle, which is treated, syntactically, like a numeral.
Questions: Questions are signaled by a rise in intonation at the end. Interrogatives remain in the same position as they would in a normal sentence.
Copulars: In the present tense, when the subject is definite and the predicate is indefinite, the subject is simply juxtaposed with its predicate, in that order. When both the subject and the predicate are definite, a pronoun (agreeing with the subject) is inserted between the two. In any other cases, the copular verb is used.
Existentials: Existentials are formed using the formula “ēyas ___”, where ___ is the thing that exists.
Conditionals: Conditionals follow the formula “gwed <condition> <outcome>” or “<outcome> gwed <condition>”. The perfect is always used, except in counterfactuals, then the irrealis is used.

Pronouns

There are no third person pronouns, with demonstratives used instead.
1st person: ḱos (sing.), kwar (dual), des (pl.)
2nd person: gērin (sing.), idēn (dual/plural)
Demonstrative: hilos (animate), eles (inanimate)
Interrogative: pōd (animate), ṕora (inanimate)
Relative: ras (animate), ṕora (inanimate)
Reflexive: yasē

Numbers: Base 6 (not fully fleshed out)

Kinship system: Mix of Crow and Inuit (not fully fleshed out)

The conlang clearly isn’t done, but I’m wondering what you guys think.

Any thoughts appreciated,

Conlangernoob

[foxcatdog]

I do not know about only having long *e and *o perhaps other long vowels would arise later or perhaps they are the diphthongs *ai and *au. Also is the second *r meant to be a uvular trill/approximate?

[Man in Space]

I do not know about only having long *e and *o [. . .] perhaps they are the diphthongs *ai and *au.

That was how I was about to suggest justifying their existence, if a naturalistic perspective were to be desired.

[bradrn]

Looks good so far! Some questions/thoughts:

The following is all I have so far for the reference grammar of my language, the Ancient Tongue (it’s not actually called the Ancient Tongue, it’s just a working title).

You should probably be aware that by now there are probably several tens of conlangs all called ‘the Ancient Tongue’, including at least one on this very board (IIRC).

Stress is on the penultimate syllable that doesn’t end in a consonant.

So what happens if it does end with a consonant? Note that in many languages stress is attracted to the ‘heaviest’ syllable in some way, and syllable weight is often increased by the presence of a coda consonant.

Verbs: Verbs are inflected for either the perfective aspect, the imperfective aspect, and the irrealis mood. The perfective is marked as null. The imperfective is marked with the suffix “-ōs” and the irrealis is marked with the suffix “-am”.

What exactly is the usage range of these three categories? Without any further explanation, ‘perfective’, ‘imperfective’ and ‘irrealis’ are all very vague terms.

Verbs can have any of zero to three arguments

How does a zero-argument verb work?

Sentence Order: SOV

Is every single sentence strictly SOV, or can word order be modified in certain circumstances? (e.g. topicalisation, focus, afterthoughts, to name but three possibilities)

There are no third person pronouns, with demonstratives used instead.

Excellent! It’s not often I see a two-person language which isn’t one of my own.

[foxcatdog]

verbs like "to rain" in spanish (or some other european language i can't remember) don't require arguments but i'm not sure about the exact usages besides verbs of weather (or verbs with implied nouns) "to bake"

[conlangernoob]

I do not know about only having long *e and *o perhaps other long vowels would arise later or perhaps they are the diphthongs *ai and *au. Also is the second *r meant to be a uvular trill/approximate?

The second r was a typo. Sorry.

[conlangernoob]

I miswrote my stress system. What I meant was this: Stress is on the penultimate syllable unless it doesn’t end in a consonant. Then it ends the antepenultimate. Sorry about that.

[conlangernoob]

What exactly is the usage range of these three categories? Without any further explanation, ‘perfective’, ‘imperfective’ and ‘irrealis’ are all very vague terms.

I rewrote it: Verbs are inflected for either the perfective aspect, the imperfective aspect, and the irrealis mood. The perfective is marked as null. The imperfective is marked with the suffix “-ōs” and the irrealis is marked with the suffix “-am”. Usually the irrealis mood is used for future events, unless it is a planned future event, in which case the imperfective is used. Present events always used the imperfective. Realis past tense actions can be any of the three inflections, but generally the perfective is used when emphasizing completeness.

Is every single sentence strictly SOV, or can word order be modified in certain circumstances? (e.g. topicalisation, focus, afterthoughts, to name but three possibilities)

Topicalization has been added: Sentences are always SOV. However, if a noun, demonstrative or verb is the topic of the sentence, that word can be replaced with the appropriate demonstrative pronoun and then the actual word can move to the very beginning of the sentence. I.e. “Tree, I saw it” for “I saw the tree”.

[bradrn]

What exactly is the usage range of these three categories? Without any further explanation, ‘perfective’, ‘imperfective’ and ‘irrealis’ are all very vague terms.

I rewrote it: Verbs are inflected for either the perfective aspect, the imperfective aspect, and the irrealis mood. The perfective is marked as null. The imperfective is marked with the suffix “-ōs” and the irrealis is marked with the suffix “-am”. Usually the irrealis mood is used for future events, unless it is a planned future event, in which case the imperfective is used. Present events always used the imperfective. Realis past tense actions can be any of the three inflections, but generally the perfective is used when emphasizing completeness.

This sounds reasonable! In that case, is there any particular reason why you call -am an ‘imperfective’ rather than a ‘future’?

[conlangernoob]

This sounds reasonable! In that case, is there any particular reason why you call -am an ‘imperfective’ rather than a ‘future’?

Miswrote. I meant "usually future events use the irrealis mood". Sorry about that.

[Travis B.]

One thing I should note is that imperfective aspect has a special link to the present tense; it is common to not have a perfective present, or limit a perfective present to things l like performatives. If one has a system with two tenses, past and non-past, and two aspects, perfective and imperfective, a perfective non-past often refers to the future.

[bradrn]

This sounds reasonable! In that case, is there any particular reason why you call -am an ‘imperfective’ rather than a ‘future’?

Miswrote. I meant "usually future events use the irrealis mood". Sorry about that.

That means exactly the same thing as what you previously wrote! And in any case my question still applies there: if the irrealis only applies to future events (which seems to be the case, since you don’t mention anywhere else it’s applicable), is there any reason it’s not just called a ‘future’?

One thing I should note is that imperfective aspect has a special link to the present tense …

This does seem to occur in the system they described.

[conlangernoob]

The Ancient Tongue has been given a new working title: Edas. Note: This isn't the final name. Just a more original placeholder.

[conlangernoob]

Introducing … Edas: Semantic Field of the Day.

Here’s how it works: Every day (minus weekends), I will post at least six interrelated words (e.g. kinship terms, locative prepositions, body part names, measurement systems) that I have added to the lexicon. That way, I can a) expand my lexicon at a reasonable (but still slowish and methodical) pace while b) holding myself to a high standard since I’m making everything available for others to see.

[conlangernoob]

Semantic Field of the Day (henceforth, SFOTD) #1: Basic Color Terms

There are six basic color terms. All color terms are nouns, and to become adjectives they must be derived.

Skēr - Black (proto-type), dark grey | Can also mean: Darkness, smoke
Yaswe - White (proto-type), light gray, off-white | Can also mean: Light, purity, goodness
Gala - Red (proto-type), orange, prink, reddish purple | Can also mean: Blood
Win - Blue (proto-type)
Alōs - Green (proto-type) | Can also mean: pasture, meadow
Hamē - Yellow (proto-type), brown | Can also mean: honey

My main concern is whether or not it is naturalistic for the word for White to metaphorically extend to goodness and purity but for black to not have the opposite connotation. Any thoughts?

conlangernoob