Conlang Random Thread

[Travis B.]

You could just do things the easy way and refer to species by their binomial nomenclature, adapted to your language's phonology.

[xxx]

binomial nomenclature, adapted to your language's phonology.

philosophical languages don't import
mouth sounds of other languages,
that can't fit in with the naming system they use...
___________________________________________________
]³²Ï«¤¶^¤]³²ODt¤¶£

[Ahzoh]

I have too many constraints... (morphological, prosodic, aesthetic, etc.)

It's become a struggle and a chore to figure out a solution to some specific problems that satisfies all or most of them, or, failing that, figure out which constraints I must keep and which I can dispose of.

Worse yet, I can't even really communicate my issues with other people so I can't really garner any help or inspiration from other people.

[bradrn]

I have too many constraints... (morphological, prosodic, aesthetic, etc.)

It's become a struggle and a chore to figure out a solution to some specific problems that satisfies all or most of them, or, failing that, figure out which constraints I must keep and which I can dispose of.

Worse yet, I can't even really communicate my issues with other people so I can't really garner any help or inspiration from other people.

Have you considered simply letting go of some of your constraints? This is generally what I end up doing when I get myself into situations like these. Most of the time, I still find myself happy with the results, even if it wasn’t quite what I had imagined at first.

[Ahzoh]

Have you considered simply letting go of some of your constraints?

...or, failing that, figure out which constraints I must keep and which I can dispose of.

[bradrn]

Have you considered simply letting go of some of your constraints?

...or, failing that, figure out which constraints I must keep and which I can dispose of.

Oh, whoops, sorry.

[keenir]

binomial nomenclature, adapted to your language's phonology.

philosophical languages don't import
mouth sounds of other languages,
that can't fit in with the naming system they use...

I fail to see the horror of that concept. If my philisophical conlang classifies otters and orcas as a marine subgroup of bears (warmblooded meateaters)...yes, its nice to know the Maori word for orca...but I don't have to use it, mouth sounds or otherwise.

[foxcatdog]

Some ideas i had for Amarin but have never given much thought were discarded in its refinement but overally it has still retained its Amarinness.

[keenir]

Have you considered simply letting go of some of your constraints?

...or, failing that, figure out which constraints I must keep and which I can dispose of.

well...how did you handle problems involving problematic constraints before now?

(maybe make a few subvarietys of the conlang in question, and each one removes a different constraint, and see which you like more?)

[Ahzoh]

Have you considered simply letting go of some of your constraints?

...or, failing that, figure out which constraints I must keep and which I can dispose of.

well...how did you handle problems involving problematic constraints before now?

I don't know.

(maybe make a few subvarietys of the conlang in question, and each one removes a different constraint, and see which you like more?)

I do that and the alternatives always have something wrong with them. So it's really kicking the can down the road.

[bradrn]

well...how did you handle problems involving problematic constraints before now?

Judging from the questions he’s been asking here, it seems to be something he’s been struggling with for a while.

[keenir]

(maybe make a few subvarietys of the conlang in question, and each one removes a different constraint, and see which you like more?)

I do that and the alternatives always have something wrong with them. So it's really kicking the can down the road.

oh. always? owch. sorry.

maybe its just time to set it aside and work on something else?

well...how did you handle problems involving problematic constraints before now?

Judging from the questions he’s been asking here, it seems to be something he’s been struggling with for a while.

I understand and I've seen that...I just figured that, prior to this recent while, Ahzoh was handling difficulties in a way that perhaps had changed between then and now -- so basically I was curious if anything had changed. I have a bad feeling I'm not wording this the best way I could, but I can't think of a better way at the moment.

[Ahzoh]

I understand and I've seen that...I just figured that, prior to this recent while, Ahzoh was handling difficulties in a way that perhaps had changed between then and now -- so basically I was curious if anything had changed. I have a bad feeling I'm not wording this the best way I could, but I can't think of a better way at the moment.

Well, the crux of my issue is that I can't decide if my person markers should be prefixes or suffixes. It is a significant matter as this drastically shapes the entire verb system and the aesthetics of the verb system. I take a lot of inspiration from Akkadian, Old Persian, Kassite, and the Hurro-Urartian languages (which Kassite might be a part of) and so the way they do things is what I look to to solve my problems.

Still, the way my roots and principle parts are shaped are like that of Akkadian and not like the other ancient Mesopotamian languages, but Akkadian has person prefixes while mine has person suffixes, so the overall shape and structure of my verbs end up differently. And also means it clashes with the aesthetic I like in Akkadian

That's not too much of an issue in of itself.

But then I run into issues such as too much subsequent gemination. Mesopotamian languages have lots of gemination, sometimes multiple series of geminated consonants, yet I've not seen any words with more than two subsequent geminated pairs. Like Akkadian nipparras ("we are being decided"). Instead when I see a word in my conlang like irrabbatta "they who assigned to a post", I can't help but think of Italian phenomenon known as raddoppiamento sintattico and with words like all'arrabbiata. It's not the aesthetic I want. Additionally, given my assimilation rules I can also have words like id-na-yannad-ni ("I who will make catch") become inninnanni. And three series of the same geminated consonant is ridiculous. But stop-nasal clusters are also unpleasant. And yet geminated verb stems (like yannad-) are also an important grammatical feature, so I can't just shorten it.

Then there is salience. The distinction between G-stem paraḫ- and D-stem parraḫ- in my conlang does not feel much salient because there is only the addition of a lengthened consonant. In Akkadian, the difference between i-prus and i-parras is much more salient because there is not only a change in consonant length but also a change in stress placement: í-prus (stress on the person prefixes) and i-párras (stress on the verb stem).
In my conlang, the stress never changes position because having CV-shaped person suffixes means that the raḫ- of paraḫ- and parraḫ- is always the stressed syllable. So the gemination doesn't feel as salient or marked.

Of course going the prefix route has its own set of problems: mainly that it still looks like a ripoff of Semitic languages. The stress rules also limit where I can put TAM affixes (without ripping off Semitic) or other things like negation markers.

[keenir]

EDIT: I'm looking over some magazine issues I have with Hittite, Urartian, and others...

Maybe, to help distinguish your conlang, borrow from Luwian Hieroglyphic: "good luck" and "good life" Perhaps they could be, like, casual interjections that, literally, don't add much beyond signaling that the speaker and listener are on good terms (or the speaker would like it to be so)

or you could turn your person markers into infixes, like what Urartian does with Bia=i=ne=li, "the (people) of the (land of) Bia".

I understand and I've seen that...I just figured that, prior to this recent while, Ahzoh was handling difficulties in a way that perhaps had changed between then and now -- so basically I was curious if anything had changed. I have a bad feeling I'm not wording this the best way I could, but I can't think of a better way at the moment.

Well, the crux of my issue is that I can't decide if my person markers should be prefixes or suffixes. It is a significant matter as this drastically shapes the entire verb system and the aesthetics of the verb system. I take a lot of inspiration from Akkadian, Old Persian, Kassite, and the Hurro-Urartian languages (which Kassite might be a part of) and so the way they do things is what I look to to solve my problems.

Still, the way my roots and principle parts are shaped are like that of Akkadian and not like the other ancient Mesopotamian languages, but Akkadian has person prefixes while mine has person suffixes, so the overall shape and structure of my verbs end up differently.

well that seems simple enough: either remove all person suffixes and all person prefixes, or just change the suffixes to prefixes, or have both person suffixes and person prefixes.

Like Akkadian nipparras (it/he was decided [durative]). Instead when I see a word in my conlang like irrabbatta "they who assigned to a post", I can't help but think of Italian raddoppiamento sintattico and words like all'arrabbiata. It's not the aesthetic I want.

hmm...

Preparing to nuke Italian and Italic languages out of existence in three...two...o-hmmm...there has to be an easier way.

(sorry; maybe just ignore Italian?)

Then there is salience. The distinction between G-stem paraḫ- and D-stem parraḫ- in my conlang does not feel much salient because there is only the addition of a lengthened consonant.

I had to read that almost four times before I noticed there was any difference between them. I was about to ask what salience is, and what it has to do with gemination...now I can only remove the second half of that request: what is salience? (my brain says "its relevance" but i would like to be sure)

In Akkadian, the difference between i-prus and i-parras is much more salience because there is not only a change in consonant length but also a change in stress placement: í-prus (stress on the person prefixes) and i-párras (stress on the verb stem).
In my conlang, the stress never changes position because having CV-shaped person suffixes means that the raḫ- of paraḫ- and parraḫ- is always the stressed syllable. So the gemination doesn't feel as salient or marked.

so...maybe give the stress a way to change position based on gemination?

[Ahzoh]

well that seems simple enough: either remove all person suffixes and all person prefixes, or just change the suffixes to prefixes, or have both person suffixes and person prefixes.

Subject marking/indexing/agreement on the verb is a mandatory nonnegotiable feature. I've thought about polypersonal agreemment, but it doesn't mesh well with my stress rules and the verb structure. Also the object markers end up not being salient as well.

Then there is salience. The distinction between G-stem paraḫ- and D-stem parraḫ- in my conlang does not feel much salient because there is only the addition of a lengthened consonant.

I had to read that almost four times before I noticed there was any difference between them. I was about to ask what salience is, and what it has to do with gemination...now I can only remove the second half of that request: what is salience? (my brain says "its relevance" but i would like to be sure)[/quote]
It means markedness, prominence, or noticeability. Year ago when I decided that I would use gemination to derive adjectives from verbs like in Ethiopian languages, the geminated form was very noticeable because it was also tied with a change in stress compared to the verb.

so...maybe give the stress a way to change position based on gemination?

The stress rules, being based on syllable weight, do not allow for that, especially given the current possible morpheme templates:

morphemechains.png (59.08 KiB) Viewed 2617 times

[keenir]

Subject marking/indexing/agreement on the verb is a mandatory nonnegotiable feature. I've thought about polypersonal agreemment, but it doesn't mesh well with my stress rules and the verb structure. Also the object markers end up not being salient as well.
It means markedness, prominence, or noticeability. Year ago when I decided that I would use gemination to derive adjectives from verbs like in Ethiopian languages, the geminated form was very noticeable because it was also tied with a change in stress compared to the verb.
The stress rules, being based on syllable weight, do not allow for that, especially given the current possible morpheme templates:

logic and reason are things I have always strived to excell at, though the pragmatics thereof are not always so good for my mind...but if the present rules are making you displeased and unhappy, and any suggestions clash with the rules...then perhaps modify or eliminate one or more of the rules?

ps: i added some additional suggestions to the top of my previous post.

[xxx]

binomial nomenclature, adapted to your language's phonology.

philosophical languages don't import
mouth sounds of other languages,
that can't fit in with the naming system they use...

I fail to see the horror of that concept.

and this rule also applies to proper nouns, scientific names, measurements and all international words...
_________________________________________________________________________
bµx¦MLa¨·«cHc¨a¨·«fHp¨·©cª•¨«¬

[keenir]

philosophical languages don't import
mouth sounds of other languages,
that can't fit in with the naming system they use...

I fail to see the horror of that concept.

and this rule also applies to proper nouns, scientific names, measurements and all international words...[/quote]

I still fail to see the horror of that concept.


btw, I notice you now have a Footer - and many congrats for that, btw. Does this mean that, in at least your conscript, there is a correspondance between a given sign/glyph, and something else? (a sound, a meme, a thought, a series of flashing lights?)

thank you.

[xxx]

thank you...
____________
bµp¦©o»Baµ

[keenir]

thank you...
____________
bµp¦©o»Baµ

???