Conlang Random Thread

[Ahzoh]

Firstly, the ‘inflectional’/‘derivational’ distinction is overrated. It makes especially little sense with categories like the passive, which have aspects of both. So I don’t consider this a valid objection.

If I'm gonna have both a causative and a passive, I'm going to also have a passive of a causative. I'm not gonna have "teach" and "is learned" without "is taught".

Why?

My deverbal adnominal can also be substantivized. So in a way it's like a participle. So, if I only have an active participle, then I have no means to derive, say "word" or "addressee" from "speak" (spoken > something spoken > addressee/word). On the other hand, without an active participle, I have no good way to get "writer" or "writing impliment" from "write" (writing > something writing > writer/pencil).
I arrive at the same conundrum with action nominals, after all "destruction" can mean either "destroying" or "being destroyed".

[bradrn]

Firstly, the ‘inflectional’/‘derivational’ distinction is overrated. It makes especially little sense with categories like the passive, which have aspects of both. So I don’t consider this a valid objection.

If I'm gonna have both a causative and a passive, I'm going to also have a passive of a causative. I'm not gonna have "teach" and "is learned" without "is taught".

Yes, and that’s fine. In fact, it’s attested even when the passive and the causative are homophonous: Dixon quotes an example from Sonrai, ŋa-ndi-ndi ‘it was made to be eaten’. This example happens to be the causative of the passive, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be the other way round.

Why?

My deverbal adnominal can also be substantivized. So in a way it's like a participle. So, if I only have an active participle, then I have no means to derive, say "word" or "addressee" from "speak" (spoken > something spoken > addressee/word). On the other hand, without an active participle, I have no good way to get "writer" or "writing impliment" from "write" (writing > something writing > writer/pencil).
I arrive at the same conundrum with action nominals, after all "destruction" can mean either "destroying" or "being destroyed".

Fair. On the other hand, as long as you have some passive construction, you could always allow the formation of the participle of a passive.

[keenir]

Firstly, the ‘inflectional’/‘derivational’ distinction is overrated. It makes especially little sense with categories like the passive, which have aspects of both. So I don’t consider this a valid objection.

If I'm gonna have both a causative and a passive, I'm going to also have a passive of a causative. I'm not gonna have "teach" and "is learned" without "is taught".

My deverbal adnominal can also be substantivized. So in a way it's like a participle. So, if I only have an active participle, then I have no means to derive, say "word" or "addressee" from "speak" (spoken > something spoken > addressee/word). On the other hand, without an active participle, I have no good way to get "writer" or "writing impliment" from "write" (writing > something writing > writer/pencil).
I arrive at the same conundrum with action nominals, after all "destruction" can mean either "destroying" or "being destroyed".

yeah...and? If memory serves, Sumerian (or Akkadian?) uses a single word for both innocence and guilty - both in the legal sense. you don't have to have a separate word or tense or participle for every last thing.

I mean, heck, you could get "writing implement" from "word"+"object"+"carve" and add +"person" to get writer. and no, it wouldn't have to all be a single word.

Or have "is taught" be "is learned"+"3rd person" maybe.

[Raphael]

yeah...and? If memory serves, Sumerian (or Akkadian?) uses a single word for both innocence and guilty - both in the legal sense.

Interesting. Is it combined with some kind of modifier to avoid misunderstandings?

[bradrn]

yeah...and? If memory serves, Sumerian (or Akkadian?) uses a single word for both innocence and guilty - both in the legal sense.

Interesting. Is it combined with some kind of modifier to avoid misunderstandings?

My own thought is that innocence and guilt are near-synonyms, in that they refer to different grades on the same scale.

[Raphael]

yeah...and? If memory serves, Sumerian (or Akkadian?) uses a single word for both innocence and guilty - both in the legal sense.

Interesting. Is it combined with some kind of modifier to avoid misunderstandings?

My own thought is that innocence and guilt are near-synonyms, in that they refer to different grades on the same scale.

Interesting. When I first read keenir's post, I thought it might work a bit like "good luck" and "bad luck" in English.

[xxx]

Interesting. Is it combined with some kind of modifier to avoid misunderstandings?

My own thought is that innocence and guilt are near-synonyms, in that they refer to different grades on the same scale.

Interesting. When I first read keenir's post, I thought it might work a bit like "good luck" and "bad luck" in English.

it's a lot like la lotería en Babilonia...
________________________________
d«º¹s«º¬f«®h²z¾Ö²«f­Qz¾D¾y²C«©

[keenir]

sorry.

yeah...and? If memory serves, Sumerian (or Akkadian?) uses a single word for both innocence and guilty - both in the legal sense.

Interesting. Is it combined with some kind of modifier to avoid misunderstandings?

I don't think it was a modifier. ..I think the passage said they were distinguished by context. I think it was either the LCK or something by Irving Finkel (though i just checked my copy of The Ark Before Noah and its not in there)


(I really need to stop typing things that I can't remember the reference material for)

[xxx]

as in: the person has been judged (and has been freed or has been beheaded)
_____________________________
d©hºfKD©OKD©½O

[Qwynegold]

I'm creating a conlang where vowels dump features on adjacent consonants, and then have lots of mergers (most of them turning into ə). For example: {ɪ ʏ ʊ} → {ʲə ᶣə ʷə}. But I have a few questions about this.

1) If there is no preceding consonant (word-initially, or if the vowel is preceded by another vowel), which option do you think is more likely? Or are both options quite likely?
a) {ʲə ᶣə ʷə} → ə
b) {ʲə ᶣə ʷə} → {jə ɥə wə}

2) When a consonant gets a secondary articulation, should it spread to other adjacent consonants, or can it stay on just that consonant alone? I think palatalization tends to spread to other adjacent consonants, but I don't know about other features. If possible, I would like to avoid spreading, so I don't end up in a situation where there are barely any plain consonants in the language.

3) So far I've been thinking of features spreading from a vowel to the preceding consonant only. But what should happen to diphthongs? Would it be plausible if diphthongs dumped features on both preceding and following consonants? For example: {ĕʉC ĕuC ɛ̆oC} → {ʲiCʷ ʲuCʷ ʲəCʷ}.

[bradrn]

1) If there is no preceding consonant (word-initially, or if the vowel is preceded by another vowel), which option do you think is more likely? Or are both options quite likely?
a) {ʲə ᶣə ʷə} → ə
b) {ʲə ᶣə ʷə} → {jə ɥə wə}

I’d say the second. Generally these systems have lots of allophony where /ə/ is pronounced as another vowel depending on the surroundings, and from this perspective the second line here makes some sense.

2) When a consonant gets a secondary articulation, should it spread to other adjacent consonants, or can it stay on just that consonant alone? I think palatalization tends to spread to other adjacent consonants, but I don't know about other features. If possible, I would like to avoid spreading, so I don't end up in a situation where there are barely any plain consonants in the language.

I can see it going either way, although I believe most languages have no spreading.

3) So far I've been thinking of features spreading from a vowel to the preceding consonant only. But what should happen to diphthongs? Would it be plausible if diphthongs dumped features on both preceding and following consonants? For example: {ĕʉC ĕuC ɛ̆oC} → {ʲiCʷ ʲuCʷ ʲəCʷ}.

I believe this is the usual analysis of Marshallese.

[WeepingElf]

1) If there is no preceding consonant (word-initially, or if the vowel is preceded by another vowel), which option do you think is more likely? Or are both options quite likely?
a) {ʲə ᶣə ʷə} → ə
b) {ʲə ᶣə ʷə} → {jə ɥə wə}

I’d say the second. Generally these systems have lots of allophony where /ə/ is pronounced as another vowel depending on the surroundings, and from this perspective the second line here makes some sense

I'd say so, too. I have a similar project myself (Ivernic, a modern Albic language spoken in Ireland) where I decided that initial front vowels develop a /j/ and initial rounded vowels develop a /w/.

2) When a consonant gets a secondary articulation, should it spread to other adjacent consonants, or can it stay on just that consonant alone? I think palatalization tends to spread to other adjacent consonants, but I don't know about other features. If possible, I would like to avoid spreading, so I don't end up in a situation where there are barely any plain consonants in the language.

I can see it going either way, although I believe most languages have no spreading.

In Ivernic I have such spreading, inspired by the way consonant clusters in Irish are AFAIK either all-broad or all-slender, but you can do it either way.

3) So far I've been thinking of features spreading from a vowel to the preceding consonant only. But what should happen to diphthongs? Would it be plausible if diphthongs dumped features on both preceding and following consonants? For example: {ĕʉC ĕuC ɛ̆oC} → {ʲiCʷ ʲuCʷ ʲəCʷ}.

I believe this is the usual analysis of Marshallese.

IMHO, diphthongs are essentially just vowels followed (or preceded) by semivowels; but that is not the one true analysis. In fact, I haven't yet found out how Ivernic treats them (if there are any diphthongs in Old Ivernic at all).

[bradrn]

2) When a consonant gets a secondary articulation, should it spread to other adjacent consonants, or can it stay on just that consonant alone? I think palatalization tends to spread to other adjacent consonants, but I don't know about other features. If possible, I would like to avoid spreading, so I don't end up in a situation where there are barely any plain consonants in the language.

I can see it going either way, although I believe most languages have no spreading.

In Ivernic I have such spreading, inspired by the way consonant clusters in Irish are AFAIK either all-broad or all-slender, but you can do it either way

Oh, I hadn’t known this — I thought Irish had no spreading.

[Qwynegold]

Thanks for the replies bradrn and WeepingElf! About Marshallese, I was under the impression that it's the semivowels that condition the vowels. But looking at the Wikipedia page, it looks like you can analyze it either way.

[bradrn]

About Marshallese, I was under the impression that it's the semivowels that condition the vowels. But looking at the Wikipedia page, it looks like you can analyze it either way.

What semivowels?

[Travis B.]

IMHO, diphthongs are essentially just vowels followed (or preceded) by semivowels; but that is not the one true analysis. In fact, I haven't yet found out how Ivernic treats them (if there are any diphthongs in Old Ivernic at all).

In English diphthongs are normally treated as being distinct vowels, particularly because in many dialects their starting points and ending points don't line up well with specific vowels (and certainly aren't semivowels), and diachronically they have undergone sound changes that normal vowels haven't. (E.g. crossdialectically there is considerable variation between front and back starting points of /aʊ/ as [æʊ̯] versus [ɑʊ̯] which has not affected /æ/ and /ɑː/ in the same fashion in the same dialects.)

In my own dialect there is also variation between what I call primary diphthongs and secondary diphthongs. Primary diphthongs are distinct, indivisible phonemes, as discussed above, and are either short or long. Secondary diphthongs are the consequences of intervocalic elision and are either long or overlong, and are better analyzed as phoneme pairs that coalesce in actual realization (and in cases vary between hiatus and diphthongs, e.g. how /eːi/* can be [e̞j] but can also be [e̞ː.i]).

* As in maybe, where it has the form /ˈmeːi/ which can be [ˈme̞ːj] or [ˈme̞ː.i(ː)], reflecting unpredictable intervocalic /b/ elision.

[Qwynegold]

About Marshallese, I was under the impression that it's the semivowels that condition the vowels. But looking at the Wikipedia page, it looks like you can analyze it either way.

What semivowels?

/j ɰ w/. See the following quote.

Superficially, 12 Marshallese vowel allophones appear in minimal pairs, a common test for phonemicity. For example, [mʲæ] (mā, 'breadfruit'), [mʲɑ] (ma, 'but'), and [mʲɒ] (mo̧, 'taboo') are separate Marshallese words. However, the uneven distribution of glide phonemes suggests that they underlyingly end with the glides (thus /mʲæj/, /mʲæɰ/, /mʲæw/). When glides are taken into account, it emerges that there are only 4 vowel phonemes.

Oh well, I think I have come up with a solution for how I want to do things in my conlang anyway.

[Qwynegold]

I want to ask one more question about sound change. It's plausible for uvulars to reject palatalization, right? So the following makes sense?
χ χʲ χᶣ χʷ → χ χ χʷ χʷ
ʁ ʁʲ ʁᶣ ʁʷ → ʁ ʁ ʁʷ ʁʷ

[WeepingElf]

I want to ask one more question about sound change. It's plausible for uvulars to reject palatalization, right? So the following makes sense?
χ χʲ χᶣ χʷ → χ χ χʷ χʷ
ʁ ʁʲ ʁᶣ ʁʷ → ʁ ʁ ʁʷ ʁʷ

I think it is plausible enough to use in a conlang. Another option is, of course, to turn palatalized uvulars into velars. Or, a step earlier, to back front vowels adjacent to uvulars (which I conjecture to have happened in the prehistory of Proto-Indo-European).

[Jonlang]

So today I've had a bit of spare time to myself. I started looking at a Finnish grammar I bought ages ago (when I planned to use it to study the noun cases) and I came across the Finnish participles.... Guess what is getting incorporated into a conlang!