Conlang Random Thread

[keenir]

Looks good in some paradigms but looks clunky or non-distinctive in others

To me, the obvious solution would be to not use it in all of the paradigms, and only use it in a few: specifically, in those that it looks good in.

[keenir]

also, I agree with Bradrn - and add to just ignore the asthetics for, say, a week or a month, and see how much you can get done when you do not let have that on the Must Address This list.

and even with my memory dumping projects out the window with the babies and bathwater, I still from time to time also feel like the two of you, in regards to hating what I have, and every option only seems to make it worse. so what do I do? I set it aside and work on something else - conlanging, drawing, taking a walk, etc.

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.

That sounds like a good thing...given that only one of the first group - that your conlang looks like - is a Semitic language. and only one of the maybe, and both of the Definately Not group.

[Jonlang]

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?

Honestly, I copy-and-pasted that before I had reassessed it and done the necessary alterations. Those perfect forms no longer exist and I am left with the other 7 (or 8?) participles if one counts the gerundive as one - of which I may change the name so that it better fits with the others. Although, to answer your question I suppose the agent participle requires an agent to be indicated where as the perfect would not. The agent participle either takes an agent in the genitive case or inflects for pronominal possession. I suppose if the agent were given as someone or something - like an 'empty' agent then that could work too. Either way I have removed the perfect forms altogether now.

[bradrn]

Although, to answer your question I suppose the agent participle requires an agent to be indicated where as the perfect would not. The agent participle either takes an agent in the genitive case or inflects for pronominal possession.

I had the same question when I first saw your posts, so I looked at some Finnish resources: it appears that this is the case in Finnish too.

[Ahzoh]

I guess the voice prefixes could work out, if they follow a certain vocalic pattern to make it distinct from the basic stem.

More: show

allvoices.png (122.51 KiB) Viewed 2447 times

Though I still don't know how I want to form their deverbatives.

---

Aside from all that, I think I have everything dealt with regarding the verb structure, except maybe relativization. Everything else like grammatical aspect will be dealt with by light verbs or auxilliary.

I might also want to have verb chains so I can add nuances to causatives, such as "commissioning" or "ordering"

---

My problem with relativization is rooted in what to do with glides, which elide intervocalically, geminate or singleton, thus my problem is illustrated thus:

Option 1 (i-prefix and gemination of consonant following it whether root or prefix):
ip-paraḫ-ni / in-na-praḫ-ni
iy-yanad-ni / iy-ya-ynad-ni
iw-wasiḫ-ni / iy-ya-wsaḫ-ni

Option 2 (middle-radical gemination):
parraḫ-ni / na-parraḫ-ni
yannad-ni / ya-yannad-ni
wassiḫ-ni / ya-wassaḫ-ni

[keenir]

I guess the voice prefixes could work out, if they follow a certain vocalic pattern to make it distinct from the basic stem.

well, maybe one way to make it less "Semitic", would be to stop following patterns?

[Ahzoh]

I guess the voice prefixes could work out, if they follow a certain vocalic pattern to make it distinct from the basic stem.

well, maybe one way to make it less "Semitic", would be to stop following patterns?

...Then it would no longer be a language with triconsonantal root morphology, which is the core purpose of the project.

Merely "following patterns" (whatever that means) doesn't automatically make it "Semitic-looking" nor was "following patterns" ever the issue. It's ripping off specific morphology in a specific way that's the issue.

I don't understand this reply...

[keenir]

I guess the voice prefixes could work out, if they follow a certain vocalic pattern to make it distinct from the basic stem.

well, maybe one way to make it less "Semitic", would be to stop following patterns?

...Then it would no longer be a language with triconsonantal root morphology, which is the core purpose of the project.

Are you sure that everything has to be part of the root? there can be particles, right? I'm pretty sure I've seen you make languages with particles and words that were very very short.

Merely "following patterns" (whatever that means) doesn't automatically make it "Semitic-looking" nor was "following patterns" ever the issue. It's ripping off specific morphology in a specific way that's the issue.

I don't understand this reply...

I made that reply because the only time I've seen anyone insistant on there being patterns in words and how they're constructed, has been in discussions of Semitic languages.

[Ahzoh]

Are you sure that everything has to be part of the root? there can be particles, right? I'm pretty sure I've seen you make languages with particles and words that were very very short.

I just made a whole sentence in my post about how aspectual distinctions would be indicated with light verbs. You haven't been paying attention at all if you think I am insisting on putting everything on the verb.

As it is, my verb's "morpheme chain" is relatively small compared to some agglutinative languages which would stack much more grammatical features onto the verb morpheme chain.

[keenir]

Are you sure that everything has to be part of the root? there can be particles, right? I'm pretty sure I've seen you make languages with particles and words that were very very short.

I just made a whole sentence in my post about how aspectual distinctions would be indicated with light verbs. You haven't been paying attention at all if you think I am insisting on putting everything on the verb.

emphasis mine.

I never specified verbs, light or otherwise. If "light verbs" are not actually verbs, then i apologize - i missed that part.

A lot of the times you run into trouble, you pull out this thing that looks like its nine consonants long...which is why I'm saying to put things elsewhere.

(five seconds of in-forum search, produced this: sVCaCCaC-am...which isn't nine, but its still long)

[keenir]

As it is, my verb's "morpheme chain" is relatively small compared to some agglutinative languages which would stack much more grammatical features onto the verb morpheme chain.

fine...then go agglutinative - stack everything onto the verbs. that'll make it less Semitic too, i trust?

[Ahzoh]

I never specified verbs, light or otherwise. If "light verbs" are not actually verbs, then i apologize - i missed that part.

A lot of the times you run into trouble, you pull out this thing that looks like its nine consonants long...which is why I'm saying to put things elsewhere.

But that's different because it's a whole ass other word instead of an affix. So it doesn't become too rhythmically straining.

As it is, my verb's "morpheme chain" is relatively small compared to some agglutinative languages which would stack much more grammatical features onto the verb morpheme chain. It has at most five morphological categories/slots whereas some agglutinative languages can have as many as 10 (like Hurrian and Urartian)

fine...then go agglutinative - stack everything onto the verbs. that'll make it less Semitic too, i trust?

It would neither make it look more like a Semitic language nor less like one.

Also, words being long isn't in itself the issue either. It is only when the word starts developing an awkward rhythm that length becomes an issue.

---

Also, as I said, when it comes to the voice prefixes, it's more about feeling a sense of morphological wholeness. That is, to look at the root combined with the voice prefix and think of it as a morphological whole instead of root-plus-inflection.

Like in Akkadian, šapris (causative of p(a)rus) should feel analogous to parris (also causative of p(a)rus) and zalzil (redup. 2-literal root) and targim (4-literal root) and not feel like ša plus pris. And it does feel like a whole, because it behaves like other 4-literals such as having the infinitive form šuprusu which is analogous to purrusu and turgumu

And I'm just not getting that same feeling from my lang's derivational morphology. It still feels like inflection, like Hittite mi-conjugation versus ḫi-conjugation or Greek and Latin person suffixes that change depending on voice.

[keenir]

I never specified verbs, light or otherwise. If "light verbs" are not actually verbs, then i apologize - i missed that part.

A lot of the times you run into trouble, you pull out this thing that looks like its nine consonants long...which is why I'm saying to put things elsewhere.

But that's different because it's a whole ass other word instead of an affix. So it doesn't become too rhythmically straining.

As it is, my verb's "morpheme chain" is relatively small compared to some agglutinative languages which would stack much more grammatical features onto the verb morpheme chain. It has at most five morphological categories/slots whereas some agglutinative languages can have as many as 10 (like Hurrian and Urartian)

fine, then try to outdo Hurrian, and have 15!

fine...then go agglutinative - stack everything onto the verbs. that'll make it less Semitic too, i trust?

It would neither make it look more like a Semitic language nor less like one.

it would solve your other problem, at least.

Also, words being long isn't in itself the issue either. It is only when the word starts developing an awkward rhythm that length becomes an issue.

then eliminate the rhythm.

Also, as I said, when it comes to the voice prefixes, it's more about feeling a sense of morphological wholeness. That is, to look at the root combined with the voice prefix and think of it as a morphological whole instead of root-plus-inflection.

your conlang isn't completed - so its not surprising there is not a sense of wholeness / completeness

Like in Akkadian, šapris (causative of p(a)rus) should feel analogous to parris (also causative of p(a)rus) and zalzil (redup. 2-literal root) and targim (4-literal root) and not feel like ša plus pris. And it does feel like a whole, because it behaves like other 4-literals such as having the infinitive form šuprusu which is analogous to purrusu and turgumu

well if you go searching for feels-good-to-me matches, of course they exist. but I'd wager that Akkadian has just as many doesn't-feel-wholeness matches.

so in your conlang, don't be shocked that not every single word feels wholeness.

And I'm just not getting that same feeling from my lang's derivational morphology. It still feels like inflection, like Hittite mi-conjugation versus ḫi-conjugation or Greek and Latin person suffixes that change depending on voice.

you just got some advice (and not from i) about this. and it seems you're dead set on ignoring it and everything else. so what do you expect us to do, when this happens?

[keenir]

we want to help you. we are trying to help you. but the more ideas of ours you dismiss, the less traditional of ideas we are left with to suggest.

Also, as I said, when it comes to the voice prefixes, it's more about feeling a sense of morphological wholeness. That is, to look at the root combined with the voice prefix and think of it as a morphological whole instead of root-plus-inflection.

great. so what wholeness or pattern or whatever word you want to use, do you see here? "I will go to the store. I went to the store. I was going to the store."

if you were going to say "well two are go and one is went"...okay, that works too -- but you could also say "they are all wV-based verbs"

or you could just use the equivilent of "went" instead of "go" in your conlang. you know, like calf, cow, beef, or "and lo, one day there will be lambs which grow into ewes bearing horns worthy of being shofars."

Like in Akkadian, šapris (causative of p(a)rus) should feel analogous to parris (also causative of p(a)rus) and zalzil (redup. 2-literal root) and targim (4-literal root) and not feel like ša plus pris. And it does feel like a whole, because it behaves like other 4-literals such as having the infinitive form šuprusu which is analogous to purrusu and turgumu

Dr Irving Finkel once related a story from his school days, when he was first learning Akkadian, that the teacher put a series of words on the board, and only two girls and Finkel himself could figure out that those words were actually related -- and Finkel says he only realized it because he had just been learning how to see such relations in his Hebrew lessons.

[Ahzoh]

we want to help you. we are trying to help you. but the more ideas of ours you dismiss, the less traditional of ideas we are left with to suggest.

Perhaps it is beyond your ability to help me. Not when you don't understand what the issue(s) is. And despite my numerous elaborations, I still think you don't understand the issue(s).

I discard some of the suggestions and frequently vacillate between others. And some of these "suggestions" seem more like the conlanging equivalents of "get good" when faced with a difficult challenge; unhelpful because they don't actually address the problem.

Idk why I bother talking about my difficulties here. I'm still left banging my head against the wall until I get the inspiration needed to fix the problem. No one can help me.

your conlang isn't completed - so its not surprising there is not a sense of wholeness / completeness

Christ on a bicycle, this isn't what I mean by "morphological whole". I'm talking about how when someone looks at the word "produce" they think [produce] not [pro][duce] and they transfer this sense of unity when deriving a new word like [produc][tion] instead of [pro][duc][tion]

[keenir]

we want to help you. we are trying to help you. but the more ideas of ours you dismiss, the less traditional of ideas we are left with to suggest.

Perhaps it is beyond your ability to help me. Not when you don't understand what the issue(s) is.

I offer suggestions, and you reject them. I ask for clarification, and you simply repeat the problem. Its hard to gain understanding, when thats going on.

And despite my numerous elaborations, I still think you don't understand the issue(s).

elaborations?

I discard some of the suggestions and frequently vacillate between others.

we don't see you vacillate - we don't see you try any of these, we don't see any test posts trialling new strategies.

we only see you refraining that you don't want your conlang to be too Semitic, but also not like Hittite or Greek...so unless you're trying to stumble into Elamite, I don't know where you're aiming other than the unattainable wholesome perfection.

And some of these "suggestions" seem more like the conlanging equivalents of "get good" when faced with a difficult challenge; unhelpful because they don't actually address the problem.

Because it doesn't seem to matter what we suggest - everything is rejected untried because it doesn't resonate with wholeness and perfection.

also i have no idea what "get good" is or means.

Idk why I bother talking about my difficulties here. I'm still left banging my head against the wall until I get the inspiration needed to fix the problem. No one can help me.

Then stop working on the problem, and work on something else! We've suggested that, we've suggested you stop trying to perfect every word and verb, we've suggested you rest.

and you never say things like "i tried X and Y suggestions, and I liked Za and Zb things about each of the results of my trying them, and I disliked Ze and Zi things about each of the results of my trying."

You just repeat the initial problem that we made suggestions to, and mayybe adding a "I don't like the rythym of that suggestion".

your conlang isn't completed - so its not surprising there is not a sense of wholeness / completeness

Christ on a bicycle, this isn't what I mean by "morphological whole". I'm talking about how when someone looks at the word "produce" they think [produce] not [pro][duce] and they transfer this sense of unity when deriving a new word like [produc][tion] instead of [pro][duc][tion]

I don't know anyone who looks at "produce" and thinks pro+duce...not even the pro-Venetian fan Blue of OSP, I would wager, thinks of ducal power when he looks at "produce".

So that leaves you as the only one who is looking at your words and seeing more possible divisions and breaks in rythym than anyone else does.

[xxx]

I don't know anyone who looks at "produce" and thinks pro+duce

I am the other one : pro-duc-tion = action of bringing forward...
3SDL uses massive chain compounds,
where each link in the chain is available,
for other compounds of the speech...

[AwfullyAmateur]

I really, really need to get back into conlanging. Maybe even revamp Sodemeresh (it's not very sound, grammatically speaking).

[Ahzoh]

I have more or less sorted out the verb system, now I'm thinking about how Vrkhazhian might have augmented biliteral roots to better fit the triliteral-based paradigms.

I have at least something like:
C₁aC₂v- > C₁aC₂áC₂-
C₁aC₂ā- > C₁aC₂áh- or C₁aC₂áḥ-
C₁aC₂ī- > C₁aC₂áy-
C₁aC₂ū- > C₁aC₂áw-

But I know nothing about the origin of middle-weak roots.

[spindlestar]

in your experience am i accurate in thinking that suppletive be-forms tend to happen most frequently on the third person?