Conlang Random Thread

[keenir]

So I noticed that Hurrian has a fair number of clitics with conjunction-like behaviour, like =an "and", =mān "but" and =nīn "truly" among others.

I want Vrkhazhian to have these, so I did come up with a good many. Though I wonder how naturalistic it would be to have the majority of them be of the CVCV shape, like these:

they look natural to me. do they not fit with the script?

[Ahzoh]

So I noticed that Hurrian has a fair number of clitics with conjunction-like behaviour, like =an "and", =mān "but" and =nīn "truly" among others.

I want Vrkhazhian to have these, so I did come up with a good many. Though I wonder how naturalistic it would be to have the majority of them be of the CVCV shape, like these:

they look natural to me. do they not fit with the script?

They'll work with the writing system. But it feels odd to have polysyllabic words conveying meanings like "and" or "or", yet many languages do, like Burnese, which has a word meaning "or" composed of three syllables that each have their own independent meaning.

[Man in Space]

I'd been lowkey trying to figure out just how to germanely describe Täptäg ř. As conceived it's a uvular fricative with a trilled release. I couldn't think of anything that seemed proper or like it fit until it hit me this evening: /χ͡ʀ̥/. It's perfect. (I was thinking of just using /ʀ̥/ or /ʀ/ but that felt to me like it got rid of the fricative aspect, and I'd also tried /χ͈~ʁ͈/ but that didn't suggest "trill" to me.)

[Ahzoh]

I'd been lowkey trying to figure out just how to germanely describe Täptäg ř. As conceived it's a uvular fricative with a trilled release. I couldn't think of anything that seemed proper or like it fit until it hit me this evening: /χ͡ʀ̥/. It's perfect. (I was thinking of just using /ʀ̥/ or /ʀ/ but that felt to me like it got rid of the fricative aspect, and I'd also tried /χ͈~ʁ͈/ but that didn't suggest "trill" to me.)

You also have:
/ʁʳ ʁ𐞪 ʶʀ/ (with or without uptack)
/χʳ χ𐞪 ᵡʀ/

Personally /ʁʳ χʳ/ are the best.

[Man in Space]

Some words I discovered in Täptäg tonight:

cheoach /cʰu̯akʰ/ 'write down, take (e.g., dictation) down'
faa_⅁uoni /ɸɑːŋwoni/ 'drum the fingers'
fedišwaä /ɸediʃ͎eæ/ 'abound'
ideäoi /idjæwi/ 'cloud'
quheoo /kʰjoː/ 'tend to s.o.'s wounds'
teaässefer /tjeæsseɸeɾ/ 'to sit, to get comfortable'
thiie /tʰiːje/ 'walk (to s.w.)'
thiour /tʰiwuɾ/ 'raise, caretake, oversee'
tjoipphoea /tʶwippʰweɑ/ 'found, establish, lay (s.th.) down, orchestrate, mastermind, plan'
udeeac /udjeɑk/ 'dam, obstruction'

[Ahzoh]

Been working on Vrkhazhian's ablaut classes and I came up with this:

Transitive:
u-a (active) / i-a (passive)
u-i (active) / i-a (passive)
u-u (active) / i-a (passive)
Intransitive:
a-a (dynamic)
a-i (dynamic)
i-a (stative)
i-i (stative)

Code: Select all

     Active       |      Passive
Realis / Irrealis | Realis / Irrealis
CaCuC- / -CCaC-   | CaCiC- / -CCaC-
CaCuC- / -CCuC-   | CaCiC- / -CCaC-
CaCuC- / -CCiC-   | CaCiC- / -CCaC-

CaCaC- / -CCaC-   |
CaCaC- / -CCiC-   |
CaCiC- / -CCaC-   |
CaCiC- / -CCiC-   |

Though, I'm not sure how to diachronically justify these patterns.

[Ahzoh]

Ah, I recall someone once told me that transitive verbs can't be stative, that they're all inherently dynamic.

[Richard W]

Ah, I recall someone once told me that transitive verbs can't be stative, that they're all inherently dynamic.

Insofar as English has a class of stative verbs, English to own is transitive and stative. Its progressive tenses are generally only used in idioms that require the progressive.

[bradrn]

Ah, I recall someone once told me that transitive verbs can't be stative, that they're all inherently dynamic.

Insofar as English has a class of stative verbs, English to own is transitive and stative. Its progressive tenses are generally only used in idioms that require the progressive.

For that matter, to know also qualifies. (It’s the standard example I’ve seen for ‘English verbs which can’t be progressivised’.)