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’.)

[Ahzoh]

Decided that "modifiers" in Vrkhazhian would always agree in gender and number, but other forms of agreement are optional. Mostly this just means case is not marked on non-head.

With case agreement:
ḫizam sānam iddam "that other god"
ḫizāya sānāya iddāya "those other gods"
arśas sānas iddas "that other vessel"
arśāza sānāza iddāza "those other vessel"

Without case agreement:
ḫizam sāna idda "that other god"
ḫizāya sānan iddan "those other gods"
arśas sāna idda "that other vessel"
arśāza sānan iddan "those other vessel

[Ahzoh]

I'm completely torn over whether the attributive/relative form of verbs should be iCCaCvC- or CaCCvC-

Most of the issues involves stress patterns and dividing syllables into metrical feet:

If attributive stem is CaCCvC-

More: show

Predicative G-stem (basic):
[paráḫta] (amphibrach)
[napráḫta]
[tapráḫta]
[ḫapráḫta]
[parḫátta]

Predicative šG-stem (causative):
[sipráḫta]
[nàsip][ráḫta] (two trochee)
[tàsip][ráḫta]
[ḫàsip][ráḫta]
[sìpra][ḫátta]

Attributive D-stem (basic):
[parráḫta]
[nàpar][ráḫta]
[tàpar][ráḫta]
[ḫàpar][ráḫta]
[pàrra][ḫátta]

Attributive šD-stem (causative):
[sìpar][ráḫta]
[nàspar][ráḫta]
[tàspar][ráḫta]
[ḫàspar][ráḫta]
[sipàrra][ḫátta] (one amphibrach and one trochee)

If the attributive stem is iC- prefix:

More: show

G-Stem (basic) with attributive prefix:
[ˀìppa][ráḫta]
[ˀìnnap][ráḫta]
[ˀìttap][ráḫta]
[ˀìḫḫap][ráḫta]
[ˀìppar][ḫátta]

šG-stem (passive) with attributive prefix:
[ˀìssip][rúḫta]
[ˀinnàsip][rúḫta]
[ˀittàsip][rúḫta]
[ˀiḫḫàsip][rúḫta]
[ˀissìpru][ḫátta]

D-stem (causative) with attributive prefix:
[ˀìppar][ráḫta]
[ˀinnàpar][ráḫta]
[ˀittàpar][ráḫta]
[ˀiḫḫàpar][ráḫta]
[ˀippàrra][ḫátta]

šD-stem (causative passive) with attributive prefix:
[ˀissìpar][rúḫta]
[ˀinnàspar][rúḫta]
[ˀittàspar][rúḫta]
[ˀiḫḫàspar][rúḫta]
[ˀìssi][pàrru][ḫátta] (three trochee)

Most of the issue lies in how I can get adjectives and adverbs.

[Raholeun]

Some days ago, the conlanging bug bit me once more and I decided to revisit some old notebooks. There's an outline of a language that was left unnamed, but its details are quite promising. So for posterity and later reference I am jotting those down here. For the time being, as a placeholder for something better, I will refer to it as the unequivocally colonial "Fleming River Language". The original notes contain an ethnonym which comes with some lore and a backstory to it, but sharing it now would distract from this sketch, and the backstory might not be used in the end.

Language goals
1) Implement the preposterous, generated vowel system (a real Gleb-special: seed 2113634539 ) that was generated some years ago and make it diachronically and synchronically plausible. If it doesn’t work, I will at least try to mislead the reader to think so. Will post my notes on the historical development soon.
2) Eschew agglutination, the language should be much more analytic than I am apt to make them.
3) Vowel alternation like umlaut and ablaut shoud be grammatically prominent. At least on the verb. Nouns as a word class are much more isolating, I imagine.
4) In my notes this one is underscored with red pen and it says "pied piper with inversion". I have no clue what that means. Most probably I was high at the time, or perhaps it is a thing and I will have to crack the books. That is a problem with old notes you have to decipher.
5) Use of "ergatoid" person prefixes on the main verb to signal inversion of the animacy hierarchy or discoursal surprise. This one actually makes perfect sense to me, because my other language Sataw does the same thing.

Vowels
The Fleming River vowel system, as far as I can tell, really is quite wild. It would be great to hear if there are some form of precedent in any natural language. In total, Fleming River has twenty vowel sounds, divided up into pairs of modal and pharyngeal vowels (termed "strong vowels" in this author's notation):

Close: /i ɪ̈ˤ ɯ ʊ̜ˤ u ʊˤ/ <i iˤ e eˤ u uˤ>
Open: /a ã aˤ ãˤ ɒ ɒ̃ ɒˤ ɒ̃ˤ/ <a ä aˤ äˤ o ö oˤ öˤ
Nasal: /ŋʲ̩ ŋ̩ˤ̟ ŋ̩ ŋ̩ˤ ŋ̩ʷ ŋ̩ʷˤ/ <ŋj ŋjˤ ŋ ŋˤ ŋw ŋwˤ>

Notes
- There are no diphthongs.
- The set of vowel sounds is phonetically surprisingly stable, as there is hardly any allophony. A shortened schwa vowel [ə̯] might be encountered when a CV- word stem is prefixed with a consonant. These consonant clusters are only found word-initially, allowing for a sort of initial sequisyllables.
- The romanization of the vowels is not definitive. For instance, I am still unsure if marking pharyngealization of vowels with a superscript <ˤ> or a regular <ʕ> is the better option. Additionally, whether the pair /ɯ ʊ̜ˤ/ should be romanized as <ɯ ɯˤ> is under consideration. Using the tilde to indicate nasalization is something I dislike, and my preferences are distinctly Istveonic, leading me to choose umlauts.

Consonants
Fleming River has a fairly unassuming consonant inventory. There are only eleven consonants of which several are underspecified:
Stops: /ᵐb ⁿd ᶮɟ ᵑɡ/ <mb nd nj ng>
Fricatives: /s z h/ <s z h>
Approximants: /w l j/ <w l y>
Rhotics /r/ <r>

Notes
- Important to note here is that the stops only maintain their prenasalized articulation word initially. This is represented in the current orthography by removing the initial <m> or <n>.
- All stops are voiced, and this voiced quality spreads to a following /s/. In other words, /s/ voices after voiced stops in initial clusters.
- Palatalization affects the fricatives and the lateral. When an alveolar fricative precedes an unstressed modal front high vowel /i/, it palatalizes slightly /s z/ to [ʃ ʒ]. Some speakers soften these sibilants even more, yielding [ɕ ʑ], but this is generally regarded as effeminate and frowned upon. Likewise, the lateral /l/ will also palatalize before /i/, and preceding strong vowels it assumes a velar or pharyngeal quality: [ɫ]. However, when the following front high vowel is phraryngealized /iˤ/ no palatalization takes place.
- The glottal stop only occurs twice in the lexicon and exclusively in interjections; iʔɒ ‘interjection indicating surprise’ and aʔa ‘interjection indicating empathy or recognition’. For now, it has its own letter <ʔ>.

Phonotactics
- Initial syllables can have CC clusters. CV and V are most common. Vowel hiatus is tolerated: V.V, for example mbaiˤ: 'be strong, be angry (person), be bitter (taste), be high in alcohol percentage' [v],'strong drink, liquor (specifically homebrewn, i.e. moonshine)' [n].
- In short, I am leaning towards restricting myself to open syllables only.
- The exceptions to the rule are found in word classes such as ideophones, interjections and hydronyms.

Notes
In typical fashion, the lexicon is a barren wasteland, but it does in fact contain quite a number of expressives and interjections. Some examples: aröbröb: ‘festive appearance’ [ideo]. For instance, a decorated room or a dolled up person; aruˤl-aruˤl: ‘imitation of the mating call of the white-spotted turkey’ [ideo]; ndzga: ‘expletive derived from the taboo word for cunnilingus’ [int]; solerb: ‘pleasantly soft, like ripe fruit or voluptuous flesh’ [ideo].

EDIT: corrected spelling.

[bradrn]

"pied piper with inversion"

Haven’t read through the rest yet, but this is a Mesoamerican specialty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied-pipi ... _inversion. (Wikipedia is pretty bad for linguistics in general, but this article looks reasonable.)

[Imralu]

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

Like, dislike, hate, love, prefer, need, want, have/own, know, mean, understand ...

[malloc]

My current project, something of an idealized philosophical language, has run into an interesting snag regarding the lexicon. Since it has no associated conworld or culture, there are no obvious guidelines for what animals and plants and such to include in the lexicon, let alone cultural constructs like games and sports. It seems reasonable to include roots for widespread animals like wolves or deer but what about rare or geographically limited ones like sloths or tigers?

[Raphael]

My current project, something of an idealized philosophical language, has run into an interesting snag regarding the lexicon. Since it has no associated conworld or culture, there are no obvious guidelines for what animals and plants and such to include in the lexicon, let alone cultural constructs like games and sports. It seems reasonable to include roots for widespread animals like wolves or deer but what about rare or geographically limited ones like sloths or tigers?

I'd say three main options I can think of are

1) try to invent a conculture with speakers of your language - but you might simply not want to do that;

2) base it mainly on things you yourself have experience with - but that might open it to criticism as a supposed "English cipher"; or

3) try to make it as real-world global as you can - but that might be extremely difficult.

Since it's arguably for your own pleasure, and since you don't seem to be interested in having a conculture for it, I'd probably recommend option 2). But it's up to you.

[xxx]

My current project, something of an idealized philosophical language, has run into an interesting snag regarding the lexicon.

is it a nomenclature or a semantic primes language...

3SDL is of the second kind,
where it's a matter of building on the fly without a pre-existing lexicon,
sometimes less precise than a nomenclature language, but more universal...

[bradrn]

My current project, something of an idealized philosophical language, has run into an interesting snag regarding the lexicon. Since it has no associated conworld or culture, there are no obvious guidelines for what animals and plants and such to include in the lexicon, let alone cultural constructs like games and sports. It seems reasonable to include roots for widespread animals like wolves or deer but what about rare or geographically limited ones like sloths or tigers?

If it’s meant to be idealised and philosophical, why not aim to include all species on Earth?

EDIT: This world be Raphael’s option 3.

[malloc]

If it’s meant to be idealised and philosophical, why not aim to include all species on Earth?

EDIT: This world be Raphael’s option 3.

Considering the sheer number of species, that would explode the lexicon to unwieldy proportions. You would need hundreds of thousands of lexemes just for beetles after all. It seems obvious that the language would have to group many species into hypernyms and the main issue is deciding what distinctions and classifications to follow. Depending on where you live, it might seem obvious that two species of tuna merit their own words whereas I would probably group them under "large bony fish" or something.

[bradrn]

If it’s meant to be idealised and philosophical, why not aim to include all species on Earth?

EDIT: This world be Raphael’s option 3.

Considering the sheer number of species, that would explode the lexicon to unwieldy proportions. You would need hundreds of thousands of lexemes just for beetles after all. It seems obvious that the language would have to group many species into hypernyms and the main issue is deciding what distinctions and classifications to follow. Depending on where you live, it might seem obvious that two species of tuna merit their own words whereas I would probably group them under "large bony fish" or something.

Luckily, we already have well-established classifications for both plants and animals. I think it should be possible to find some way to transfer those into your language. (Since I know nothing about this language I can’t actually give any concrete suggestions for how to do so.)