Conlang Random Thread

[Travis B.]

I think where we are getting confused is that by 'choice' I meant choice for the whole clause, not a choice for each argument independent of one another. What I was referring to is definitely split-ergativity if split-ergativity is independent for each argument (i.e. A can have a different alignment from O within the same clause).

It depends on the type of split-ergativity, but when the split is based on animacy, it’s certainly independent for each argument.

(Of course for other kinds of splits that might be logically impossible, e.g. when it’s based on TAM.)

I gather that you can have split-ergativity similar to that based on animacy based on things like definiteness and topicality as well. I have added definiteness as another dimension of split-ergativity to Rihalle Kaafi to make things more interesting than just split-ergativity based on animacy alone.

[bradrn]

I think where we are getting confused is that by 'choice' I meant choice for the whole clause, not a choice for each argument independent of one another. What I was referring to is definitely split-ergativity if split-ergativity is independent for each argument (i.e. A can have a different alignment from O within the same clause).

It depends on the type of split-ergativity, but when the split is based on animacy, it’s certainly independent for each argument.

(Of course for other kinds of splits that might be logically impossible, e.g. when it’s based on TAM.)

I gather that you can have split-ergativity similar to that based on animacy based on things like definiteness

I consider the animacy hierarchy to incorporate definiteness too.

and topicality as well

This is more complicated… a lot of so-called ‘ergative’ systems which incorporate topicality or focus should more accurately be called ‘marked nominative’, since ‘ergative’ marking can be extended to intransitive subjects.

(A peculiarity here is that there are some languages where the focus is obligatorily ergative/nominative, and others where the focus is never ergative/nominative, so unlike animacy we can’t really consider it a hierarchy.)

[foxcatdog]

To avoid overt englishiness i'm thinking about making it so locative.demonstratives can be used for emphasis when combined verbal locatives but not prepositional locatives.

nan pikina wii aman enarim
NONS rain+VERB DEM.LOC.Spec be.in marsh
“It’s raining here in the marshes”

But not say nan pikina wii ka enarim

[jal]

Also, no, adnominal doesn't mean "noun case", it literally means "attached to or modifying a noun"

I was thinking of this definition, "The grammatical case used to modify a noun", but I see what you mean.

It's not word salad, it's just very bad reading comprehension of my previous paragraph.

Possibly.

They are all modifying/qualifying a noun and do not denote a syntactic role with respect to the verb.

Understood.

No, absolutely false. (...) Absolutely false (...) Again, absolutely false (...) This whole comment of yours should be embarrassing with the levels of poor reading comprehension and confidently incorrect going on.

Yes, you are absolutely right, I'm pretty emberassed right now. I was tired when I wrote my reply, should've know better to try replying. My apologies if I made your blood pressure go up.


JAL

[malloc]

Currently mulling the possibilities for tone in my latest project, attempting to balance plausibility and conceptual elegance with aesthetic interest. The most promising and straightforward proposal distinguishes high and low tone with falling tone on long vowels and diphthongs. This works quite well conceptually and has plenty of natlang precedent (while also presenting few challenges for pronunciation or orthography). Nonetheless it seems disappointingly simple, especially given the otherwise quite elaborate phonology. I am debating whether to complicate things, perhaps by adding a mid tone, or settle for a simple yet reliable system.

[bradrn]

Currently mulling the possibilities for tone in my latest project, attempting to balance plausibility and conceptual elegance with aesthetic interest. The most promising and straightforward proposal distinguishes high and low tone with falling tone on long vowels and diphthongs. This works quite well conceptually and has plenty of natlang precedent (while also presenting few challenges for pronunciation or orthography). Nonetheless it seems disappointingly simple, especially given the otherwise quite elaborate phonology. I am debating whether to complicate things, perhaps by adding a mid tone, or settle for a simple yet reliable system.

Note that you can have a simple tone inventory yet have interesting tonal phenomena on top of that. For instance, in Hausa (which has the same inventory of tones):

• The low-toned definite article -ˋn / -ˋr̃ converts a preceding high tone to falling tone
• The ‘stabiliser’ particle has tone polarity, so its tone is always opposite to that of the preceding syllable; similarly, weak subject pronouns are polar to both preceding and following AM particles
• Falling tones can be simplified to high tones before the relativiser dà, and to low tones before definite demonstratives and the adverb ‘then’
• Similarly, would-be rising tones (resulting from e.g. vowel deletion) are simplified to a low tone after a high tone, and to a high tone otherwise.
• Some morphemes have no surface tone and thus get their tone from spreading processes.

Plus, as with many Chadic languages, grammatical tone is extremely important in nominal and verbal inflection. (All this is from Newman’s excellent reference grammar.)

[Travis B.]

Currently mulling the possibilities for tone in my latest project, attempting to balance plausibility and conceptual elegance with aesthetic interest. The most promising and straightforward proposal distinguishes high and low tone with falling tone on long vowels and diphthongs. This works quite well conceptually and has plenty of natlang precedent (while also presenting few challenges for pronunciation or orthography). Nonetheless it seems disappointingly simple, especially given the otherwise quite elaborate phonology. I am debating whether to complicate things, perhaps by adding a mid tone, or settle for a simple yet reliable system.

In addition to everything Brad mentioned, one idea is to combine tone with phonation, e.g. add glottalization to closed syllables ending in voiceless plosives and give these their own tone (e.g. Middle Chinese), or add a breathy-voicing distinction on syllables which affects tone (e.g. various mainland Southeast Asian languages).

[AwfullyAmateur]

Different topic, but Sodemeresh now has a word for bell: ruraruro. It is an onomatopoeia.

[AwfullyAmateur]

And with Kusibab (prayer) the lexicon has just hit 500 words!

[keenir]

And with Kusibab (prayer) the lexicon has just hit 500 words!

kudos and congratulations!

[jal]

And with Kusibab (prayer) the lexicon has just hit 500 words!

What do you count as a word? Do you have derivational morphology, and if so, do you count derived words as well?


JAL

[AwfullyAmateur]

And with Kusibab (prayer) the lexicon has just hit 500 words!

What do you count as a word? Do you have derivational morphology, and if so, do you count derived words as well?


JAL

I count a word as a term referring to a specific thing, and yes, I count derived words. But only if they aren't verb inflections or suchlike.

[jal]

I count a word as a term referring to a specific thing, and yes, I count derived words. But only if they aren't verb inflections or suchlike.

I was asking because if you have, for example, a generic way to derive "the one who does it" from an active verb, and "the one who experiences it" etc., you could have a lot of repitition in your lexicon, and quite a lot of words. (My first conlang Kotane has a rich derivational morphology, so I tend not to list all those derived words.)


JAL

[bradrn]

For dictionaries, I think that ‘lexeme’ is much clearer than ‘word’. Partly because the existence of a ‘word’ category is probably not a linguistic universal, and partly because there are things which obviously aren’t ‘words’ but which should be included in a dictionary nonetheless. This also clarifies the issue of ‘derived words’: they should be included in a dictionary whenever they form separate lexemes. (Of course this is still a matter of judgement.)

[jal]

For dictionaries, I think that ‘lexeme’ is much clearer than ‘word’. Partly because the existence of a ‘word’ category is probably not a linguistic universal, and partly because there are things which obviously aren’t ‘words’ but which should be included in a dictionary nonetheless. This also clarifies the issue of ‘derived words’: they should be included in a dictionary whenever they form separate lexemes. (Of course this is still a matter of judgement.)

Yeah, you're right, "lexeme" is better. In Kotane, the -e verbal nominalizer suffix often forms lexemes while the -ise suffix does not, even though they primarily both have a patient/direct object meaning. But defining what is, and what isn't, a lexeme isn't always easy.


JAL

[malloc]

From what I am reading about autosegmental phonology, it seems there are some interesting possibilities for the tone system. If one tone can spread across multiple syllables then presumably tone changes can affect multiple syllables at once. Thus if the language has a rule dissimilating one high tone after another, then multiple highs could change at once, something like tásá-rá > tāsārá. Now granted, I have not seen this specific process attested in natural languages.

I also have a persistent intuition that a low-high sequence within a syllable could simplify to mid. Low raising and high lowering are common processes, after all, and rising tones are reportedly more marked than falling ones so they have reason to simplify. That said, nothing in my research has mentioned that possibility and limiting a level tone to long vowels like a contour tone feels counterintuitive.