Conlang Random Thread

[keenir]

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!

Hmm...I'd guess its going to be smiley-based pictographs.

[Travis B.]

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!

Hmm...I'd guess its going to be smiley-based pictographs.

A language written with animated smileys... wow!

[bradrn]

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!

Don’t leave us hanging! What’s so great about the Finnish participles?

[jal]

Don’t leave us hanging! What’s so great about the Finnish participles?

Good question. They seem like run-of-the-mill participles with some specific meaning that isn't universally applicable to other languages.


JAL

[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!

Don’t leave us hanging! What’s so great about the Finnish participles?

Nothing particularly. But seeing as one of my conlangs doesn't have any and now this one has nine! (kind of). They're not particularly amazing but they're somewhat more complex than say English's active and passive. The Finnish (and now mine) can replace relative clauses. The eight that I now have are:

Present active: the singing bird, the bird that is singing; the watching man, the man who is watching
Present passive: the house being painted, the man being watched
Past active: the bird that sang, the man that watched
Past passive: the house that was painted, the painted house; the man who was watched, the watched man
Perfect active:* the man having watched, the bird having sung
Perfect passive*: the man having been watched, the house having been painted
Agent: the house painted by the man (more literally 'the painted-by-the-man house') the agent (man) is placed in the genitive.
Negative†: the unpainted house, the unwatched man
Gerundive: the house to be painted; the house ready for painting. – this was actually present before the expansion of the participles and, as you may guess, was taken from Latin. Its form corresponds to the form of the gerund: a verb with a gerund in -iqua has the gerundive in -iquos; a gerund in -ita has the gerundive in -itos.

* – Not from Finnish.
† – the negative participle won't be productive and will be limited to much older forms, idioms, and phrases. The productive form will be a negating prefix.

The use of the participles to replace relative clauses will be much more common in the literary form of the language, the colloquial register will use actual relative clauses. They will continue to be used to form compound tenses (participle + copula) in both registers.

[bradrn]

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!

Don’t leave us hanging! What’s so great about the Finnish participles?

Nothing particularly. But seeing as one of my conlangs doesn't have any and now this one has nine! (kind of). They're not particularly amazing but they're somewhat more complex than say English's active and passive.

Ah, thanks!

The Finnish (and now mine) can replace relative clauses.

As can that of English: you yourself gave the example of the house painted by the man.

[spindlestar]

Speaking of inspiration from Finnish, I'm playing around with vowel harmony in one project. What I'm currently thinking is a vowel inventory of:
<ı, y, i, u, e, o, a> [ɪ, ʉ, i, u, ɛ, ɔ, a~ə]

	front	central	back
high	i <i>	ʉ <y>	u <u>
mid-high	ɪ <ı>
mid-low	ɛ <e>	ə <a>	ɔ <o>
low		a <a>

where /e/ and /o/ can only occur in the context of other low vowels and /i/ and /u/ can only occur in the context of other high vowels. ([ə] only occurs word-finally, as it's originally the result of back vowels /a, o, u/ being reduced in word-final unstressed syllables.)
The rationale is that the original phonemes E and O were realized as [e~ɛ] and [o~ɔ] depending on the context—i.e. raised when following a high vowel—and eventually dissimilatory further raising of [e] and [o] triggered some chain shifting.
I think I like this at the moment? But I liked the previous three iterations of this vowel system too so we'll see lol

[Zju]

Speaking of inspiration from Finnish, I'm playing around with vowel harmony in one project. What I'm currently thinking is a vowel inventory of:
<ı, y, i, u, e, o, a> [ɪ, ʉ, i, u, ɛ, ɔ, a~ə]

	front	central	back
high	i <i>	ʉ <y>	u <u>
mid-high	ɪ <ı>
mid-low	ɛ <e>	ə <a>	ɔ <o>
low		a <a>

where /e/ and /o/ can only occur in the context of other low vowels and /i/ and /u/ can only occur in the context of other high vowels. ([ə] only occurs word-finally, as it's originally the result of back vowels /a, o, u/ being reduced in word-final unstressed syllables.)
The rationale is that the original phonemes E and O were realized as [e~ɛ] and [o~ɔ] depending on the context—i.e. raised when following a high vowel—and eventually dissimilatory further raising of [e] and [o] triggered some chain shifting.
I think I like this at the moment? But I liked the previous three iterations of this vowel system too so we'll see lol

Which height is dominant? Are vowels other than /ɛ ɔ i u/ neutral? Since it's apparently a height-based harmony, I'd expect /ʉ a/ and maybe /ɪ/ to also be affected by it. But then ANADEW Mongolian.

Perfect passive*: the man having been watched, the house having been painted
Agent: the house painted by the man (more literally 'the painted-by-the-man house') the agent (man) is placed in the genitive..

How do these two differ in usage?

[spindlestar]

Which height is dominant? Are vowels other than /ɛ ɔ i u/ neutral? Since it's apparently a height-based harmony, I'd expect /ʉ a/ and maybe /ɪ/ to also be affected by it.

[ɛ ɔ] (the low versions) are the default realizations of the E and O phonemes, and become [ i u] when the [+high] feature is added; [ɪ ʉ a] are neutral and don't change, at least not productively.
Essentially, I started with a bog-standard /i u e o a/ inventory and had the mid-vowels /e o/ being pulled up to an [e̝ o̝] realization after high vowels /i u/ and pulled down to an [ɛ ɔ] realization after the low vowel /a/; /i u a/ themselves were neutral triggers only. [e̝ o̝] get raised further to [ i u], and the original /i u/ phonemes shifted over to make room for that, /i/ lowering and slightly centralizing to [ɪ] and /u/ fronting and slightly centralizing to [ʉ]. /a/ is just hanging out vibing lmao

But then ANADEW Mongolian.

I'm not sure what this means?

[Zju]

a natlang already does even worse

[xxx]

ANADEW = A Natlang Already Did it Even Worse...

a fixist vision of conlanging that places it firmly under the tutelage of linguistics...
it has to be said that using linguistics for conlanging cannot produce another vision of things...
a bit like a snake dying its own tail...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
mÄ´Ãn[mÃVÅ8´ÃmÃVf´o¶ZmÃÂm²f´G²ÆZmÃÂ|´²µo¶„²mÃo¶TT|²µmÃVÅT8´Ão´o²TwÇ9²o´Â

[spindlestar]

a fixist vision of conlanging that places it firmly under the tutelage of linguistics...
it has to be said that using linguistics for conlanging cannot produce another vision of things...
a bit like a snake dying its own tail...

i'm not certain a naming language for a legend of zelda/homestuck crossover fanfiction is really the optimal place for me to do a deep philosophical exploration of the nature of language construction but thank you for the advice

[Man in Space]

*Except Worse

[Ahzoh]

Without considering alterations based on vowel quality, I have devised a table of all the possible "internal modifications" of the "shape" of words formed from triliteral root based on my conlang's stress rules.

For verbs:

More: show

verbsoptions.png (79.87 KiB) Viewed 1947 times

For nouns:

More: show

nounsoptions.png (136.83 KiB) Viewed 1947 times

There are other permutations such as lengthening Vowel 1 of the root or middle root gemination plus lengthening of Vowel 2, but they feel less salient/distinctive/marked than these permutations.

Anyways, given all this, it is part why I feel like i have little room to do things like incorporate additional affixes. Looks good in some paradigms but looks clunky or non-distinctive in others. Like I want to have gemination be used to derive a lexical adjective from verbs (speak > spoken, sit > seated, be good > good), but if I also use it to indicate lexical causative voice (e.g. learn > teach, eat > feed) then I don't know what to do to get a lexical adjective from a lexical causative. If I use an sV- preformative to indicate lexical causative then that means I must also add it to the adjective but sVCaCCaC-am looks wrong to me. Though I have no reason to feel that way since Semitic languages have participles of similar form like muCaCCaC-un

Of course, I also just worry about ripping off Semitic too much, but at the same time, It's pretty much impossible to since there's only so many way you can internally modify a root and Semitic languages use ALL of those ways. Best I can do then is to use them for different grammatical functions (e.g. middle-root gemination for pluractionality, though I'm pretty sure a Semitic language also does that). It's also hard not to use the same affix consonants since there's very few consonants (e.g. coronals and sonorants) that are not only harmonious with every consonant but also themselves.

Sometimes with these problems, I look to some unrelated languages that fit my aesthetic, like the Hurro-Urartian languages or Kassite. I will look at works like ḫašimbur or maštakal, sambiḫaruk, šimdi, baziḫarzi, or lagaštakkaš and I think "can parts of this word be turned into affixes?" It's how I got some of my case endings and it's what inspired me to use š/s as some kind of voice prefix. But as I said in here many times, I continue to struggle to find inspiration to solve my current problem.

[bradrn]

If I use an sV- preformative to indicate lexical causative then that means I must also add it to the adjective but sVCaCCaC-am looks wrong to me. Though I have no reason to feel that way since Semitic languages have participles of similar form like muCaCCaC-un

So, if you have no reason to feel this way, you should probably ignore the little voice in your head telling you ‘this is bad’, and just do it. After a while you’ll get used to the form.

Of course, I also just worry about ripping off Semitic too much

Look: the simple fact is that you’re making a triconsonantal language. That’s going to look Semitic whatever you do. Not only that, you’ve already made the decision to deliberately make your language look Semitic, down to using the letter ⟨ḫ⟩. You might as well embrace the aesthetic.

[Ahzoh]

If I use an sV- preformative to indicate lexical causative then that means I must also add it to the adjective but sVCaCCaC-am looks wrong to me. Though I have no reason to feel that way since Semitic languages have participles of similar form like muCaCCaC-un

So, if you have no reason to feel this way, you should probably ignore the little voice in your head telling you ‘this is bad’, and just do it. After a while you’ll get used to the form.

Always sounds like you never have this issue, so you probably don't understand it. Just like people find it hard to grasp the idea of constantly revising the same project for a decade until it's completely unrecognizable to what it was at the start instead of scrapping and starting anew.

Of course, I also just worry about ripping off Semitic too much

Look: the simple fact is that you’re making a triconsonantal language. That’s going to look Semitic whatever you do. Not only that, you’ve already made the decision to deliberately make your language look Semitic, down to using the letter ⟨ḫ⟩. You might as well embrace the aesthetic.

It's not about the aesthetic though...

There's a huge difference between "vaguely resembles Semitic language" and "basically a semitoclone, right down to using m- prefixes to indicate participles, having person marking prefixes in the present tense but person marking suffixes in the past tense and using some sonorant to indicate definiteness."

Besides, the romanization is used for all the Ancient Near Eastern languages. My language could look Akkadian, Luwian, Hittite, Sumerian or even Hurrian. Maybe Arabic. It definitely doesn't look like Hebrew or Amharic.

[bradrn]

If I use an sV- preformative to indicate lexical causative then that means I must also add it to the adjective but sVCaCCaC-am looks wrong to me. Though I have no reason to feel that way since Semitic languages have participles of similar form like muCaCCaC-un

So, if you have no reason to feel this way, you should probably ignore the little voice in your head telling you ‘this is bad’, and just do it. After a while you’ll get used to the form.

Always sounds like you never have this issue, so you probably don't understand it. Just like people find it hard to grasp the idea of constantly revising the same project for a decade until it's completely unrecognizable to what it was at the start instead of scrapping and starting anew.

I certainly do recognise this issue. Just take a look at the old form of my current conlang, and then compare it to how it ended up (reformatted and abbreviated slightly for comparison):

(IMPF / CONT / ITV / PFV / TEL / DIM)
yusɔ / yusɔl / yusɔts / yošə / yošəŋu / yošətse
faw / fawle / fawse / fawše / fawšeŋu / fawšetse
ul / ulle / ultse / ol / olŋu / oltse
tuŋl̩ / tuŋl̩le / tuŋl̩se / tuŋle / tuŋleŋu / tuŋletse

(Atelic / Iterative / Intensive / Stative / Punctual)
fe / fes / fen / foŋ / fem
ase / ases / — / asoŋ / asem
wle / — / wlen / wloŋ / wlem
ndok / ndos / ndon / ndoŋ / —

Note that, a few posts after that first paradigm, I suggested that ‘I’m fairly satisfied with this’. That was three years ago. The language is now unrecognisable from what I suggested then.

Another example — let’s look at a sample text:

Sæssæŋ šɔ Ælsæŋ muŋiwæyelle faw, naŋ exæyənə pæws bəyesɔl, aŋseŋæ esæwyošətse læm.

The modern version would be something more like: Sar tof Nir ntaŋsiwassanisafwes, naʔni biwakyiʔndo-i, eŋes mbirwoŋisa nmaʔ ub.

Now, do I like the modern version any better, phonaesthetically? To be quite honest… no. I still strongly prefer the sound of the old language. But, just like you, I always felt it was just never good enough. I had an impossible set of criteria I wanted it to fulfill, and for three years I beat my head against the wall trying to get everything to line up perfectly.

So what happened? Eventually, I realised that, no matter what I did, the result was never going to be perfect in every way, and I would never be completely satisfied. So instead I took a radically different approach — I deliberately stopped caring about how ugly the result would be. That freed me up to focus on places with genuine interest: the grammar, the lexicon, and the unique ways of expressing things that this language has. And this didn’t stop me from doing some interesting phonological stuff, too. The result is something I can be proud of.

[xxx]

i'm not certain a naming language for a legend of zelda/homestuck crossover fanfiction is really the optimal place for me to do a deep philosophical exploration of the nature of language construction but thank you for the advice

for naming language, you can avoid any commitment
and use a name generator - there are many on the web -
or just use your imagination...
________________________________________________________
o…}³¶fUoµ¸:

[spindlestar]

for naming language, you can avoid any commitment and use a name generator - there are many on the web - or just use your imagination...

Yes, perhaps I could use my imagination to come up with a funky li'l vowel inventory and rules for using it, so that the names I come up with have a cohesive aesthetic. Wouldn't that be neat?
I feel like you're probably trying to be helpful here, xxx, so, in the nicest way possible: I don't think you and I have the same priorities when it comes to either the process or the end goal of conlanging. I want to design a cute little language for my cute little dragon-people for my cute little fanfic, because playing with linguistics brings me joy and I like finding excuses to do it.
If you want your conlanging to be a grand philosophical statement then that's very cool and by all means keep at it, but I'm not doing my hobby wrong just because I'm not doing it like you.

[xxx]

Yes, perhaps I could use my imagination to come up with a funky li'l vowel inventory and rules for using it, so that the names I come up with have a cohesive aesthetic. Wouldn't that be neat?

one can hardly bring about another way of naming reality without questioning the meaning...
but in conlanging there is only one rule do what thou wilt...
why not a naming language...
_________________________________________________________________________________________
…}³¶nÄWÆ[…9·³Z…Ä[}³¶íµ³fUo…}³¶YfUoµ¸: