Ophois' Scratchpad

[ophois]

Tanenekaho Khi'inimere aka, or Tanenekaho to its friends, is the language spoken by the Tanenekaho people (real shocking, I know). Tanenekaho itself means something like "great clan" because if you asked a Tanenekaho person what ethnicity they are, they'd probably respond with their clan. If you wanted to specify what group includes all Tanenekaho people but no outsiders, "great clan" or "clan of clans" would be the description they'd use.

Tanenekaho's most notable feature lies in its phonology, where the surface-level phones differ greatly from underlying phonemes. To understand what that means, allow me to outline the phonemic inventory:

/n/
/t k kʷ/
/t͈ k͈ k͈ʷ/
/f x xʷ/

/ɑ ə i/

Syllable structure is simply (C)V(n). However, a variety of phonological processes, denoted here in order of application, obscure these underlying forms:
- Fortis stops are only distinct from lenis stops in that they don't voice after /n/ or lenite to [ɾ ʔ w] between vowels. Word-initially, they are not distinguished but the difference is often recoverable due to Tanenekaho's heavily prefixing morphology.
- /nf nx nxʷ/ become [m ŋ ŋʷ].
- [ŋ k g x] become [ɲ c ɟ s] before /i/.
- Labiovelars colour follow /ɑ ə/ to [ɔ u] before dropping their labialisation, with the exception of [xʷ] before [u], which becomes [ɸ], and [w], which stays as-is. They retain their contrast with the plain velars before /i/ by not palatalising.
- Coda [n] assimilates to the place of articulation of following consonants.
- [x] debuccalises to [h] before [ə].

With all that said, the surface-level, phonetic inventory, with accompanying romanisation, is as follows:

[m n ɲ ŋ] <m n ñ-n ñ(h)-n>
[t c k ʔ] <t k k(h) ’>
[d ɟ g] <d g g(h)>
[ɸ f s x h] <f f s h h>
[ɾ w] <r w>

[ɑ ə i ɔ u] <a e i o u>

Velar consonants have a following <h> preceding <i>, as not to be confused with the palatals, and coda [ɲ ŋ] are romanised <n>.

[äreo]

Looks cool so far. Interested to see more.

[ophois]

The basic syntax of a Tanenekaho sentence is SOV. Verbs agree with both the subject and the object by adding the following prefixes:

	Singular	Paucal	Plural
First person	/xʷ(ə)-/	/xʷək͈(ɑ)-/	/xʷən-/
Second person	/kɑf(ə)-/	/kɑfək͈(ɑ)-/	/kɑfən-/
Third person	/kʷ(i)-/	/kʷik͈(ɑ)-/	/kʷin-/
Fourth person	/tɑn-/	/tɑnk͈(ɑ)-/	/tɑnin-/

Plus a reciprocal in /fɑk(ɑ)-/.

As you can see, Tanenekaho possesses both a proximate/obviate and paucal/plural distinction. The subject prefix naturally precedes the object, and /kʷ(i)-/ is actually optional when the subject of intransitive verbs or the object of transitive ones.

In addition to polypersonal agreement, Tanenekaho verbs also inflect for aspect. The imperfective is marked by /ən(ɑ)-/ (and maybe there are other aspects, too? Still working on this). Aspect markers fit between agreement markers and the root.

Some example sentences:

/əxʷɑnkʷi kʷɑnk͈i/

horse to.run

<Ehonghi konki>
"The horse runs."

/tət͈i əxʷɑnkʷi kʷi-tɑn-tikin/

man horse 3.sg-4.sg-to.see

<Teti ehonghi khirandi'in>
"The man sees the horse."

/əxʷɑnkʷi ənɑ-kʷɑnk͈i/

horse IMPF-to.run

<Ehonghi enawonki>
"The horse is running."

[Darren]

Cool phonology. Quite Caddoan.

Velar consonants have a following <h> preceding <i>, as not to be confused with the velars,

I feel like the second "velar" here is supposed to be "palatal"

The basic syntax of a Tanenekaho sentence is SOV. Verbs agree with both the subject and the object by adding the following prefixes:
(Note: I can't figure out how to do tables yet so a-listing we will go)

Here you go:

	Singular	Paucal	Plural
First person	/xʷ(ə)-/	/xʷək͈(ɑ)-/	/xʷən-/
Second person	/kɑf(ə)-/	/kɑfək͈(ɑ)-/	/kɑfən-/
Third person	/kʷ(i)-/	/kʷik͈(ɑ)-/	/kʷin-/
Fourth person	/tɑn-/	/tɑnk͈(ɑ)-/	/tɑnin-/
Reciprocal			/fɑk(ɑ)-/

The basic idea is that each cell is enclosed in [cell]contents[/cell], and each row in [row]cells[/row], and then the entire table in [table]rows[table]. And then for the shaded sections you have [cellh][/cellh], and [rowh][/rowh] which turns an entire row shaded.

[ophois]

Cool phonology. Quite Caddoan.

Velar consonants have a following <h> preceding <i>, as not to be confused with the velars,

I feel like the second "velar" here is supposed to be "palatal"

D'oh, corrected.

The basic syntax of a Tanenekaho sentence is SOV. Verbs agree with both the subject and the object by adding the following prefixes:
(Note: I can't figure out how to do tables yet so a-listing we will go)

Here you go:

	Singular	Paucal	Plural
First person	/xʷ(ə)-/	/xʷək͈(ɑ)-/	/xʷən-/
Second person	/kɑf(ə)-/	/kɑfək͈(ɑ)-/	/kɑfən-/
Third person	/kʷ(i)-/	/kʷik͈(ɑ)-/	/kʷin-/
Fourth person	/tɑn-/	/tɑnk͈(ɑ)-/	/tɑnin-/
Reciprocal			/fɑk(ɑ)-/

The basic idea is that each cell is enclosed in [cell]contents[/cell], and each row in [row]cells[/row], and then the entire table in [table]rows[table]. And then for the shaded sections you have [cellh][/cellh], and [rowh][/rowh] which turns an entire row shaded.

Thanks! For something reason it wasn't showing up when I tried it myself.

[ophois]

Finnish meets Japanese

Proto-lang:
/m n/
/p t k/
/s/
/l j w/

/a e i o u/

(C)V(C)

1. w > v
2. l > j / C_
3. {e i} > 0 / _j
4. j > 0 / _{e i}
5. {p t k s} {m l} > ʔ n / _$
6. p > ɸ
7. {ɸ m} t k s > β ð ɣ ɹ / V_(j)V ! _(j)V{ʔ #}
8. t k s > d g d͡z / n_ ! _(j)V{ʔ #}
9. ʔ > 0 / ! _C(j)V{ʔ #}
10. ʔC > Cː
11. β ð ɣ > v d h
12. t d > t͡s d͡z / _{i j u}
13. ng > ŋː
14. ɸː > pː
15. ɸ > h / ! _u
16. h > ɸ / _u
17. {l ɹ} > ɾ
18. {nm nɸ} nh nk > mː nː ŋk
19. n t͡s d͡z s k g h > ɲ t͡ɕ d͡ʑ ɕ c ɟ ç / _i
20. nj t͡sj d͡zj sj kj gj hj > ɲ t͡ɕ d͡ʑ ɕ c ɟ ç
21. d͡z > (d)ɾ / ! _u

/m n ŋ/ <m n ng-n>
/p t d k/ <p t-ts-ch d-z-j k>
/v s h/ <v s-sh h-f>
/ɾ j/ <r y>

/a e i o u/ <a e i o u>

(C)(j)V(F), where finals can be a place-assimilating nasal or the first part of a geminate.

/ŋ p/ only occur geminated (or, in /ŋ/'s case, as an allophone of the place-assimilating nasal before /k/), and /h/ never does. /ŋ/ is spelled <ng>, not <ngng>, when geminated and <n> in coda position. /j/ never occurs before front vowels. /t d h/ before /u/ are [t͡s d͡z ɸ] <ts z f>. /n t d k g s h/ before /i j/ are [ɲ t͡ɕ d͡ʑ ɕ c ɟ ç] <n ch j sh k g h>. /j/ then deletes (partially reflected in orthography after sibilants). /nɾ/ is occasionally pronounced [ndɾ] in more conservative 'lects, but this is stigmatised.

Edit: Might make it so that the proto-lang has (C)(j w)V(C)

[ophois]

I spend too much time making up random inventories instead of actually conlanging.

Páthani [pa˥t̪a˩ni˩] - aka minimalist Australian with tones

/m n̪ n ɳ ɲ ŋ/ <m nh n rn ny ng>
/p t̪ t ʈ c k/ <p th t rt ty k>
/ɾ ɻ j w/ <r rr y w>

/a i-ə-u/ <a i-e-u>
/V˩ V˥/ <a á>

CV syllable structure

The non-low vowel is [i] following /n ɲ t c j/, [u] following /m ŋ p k w/, and [ə] following /n̪ ɳ t̪ ʈ ɾ ɻ/. /ɻ/ deletes word-initially. High tones cannot occur in adjacent syllables.

[ophois]

Yet another new project. Notes dump:

Proto-lang:
/m n/
/p b t d k g/
/ɸ s x/
/l r j w/

VdV {VgV VxV} > diphthongs
b > β / V_V
w > β
V > Vː / _CV (also before resonant + voiced stop clusters at the same POA, i.e. /mb nd ŋg ld rd/)
C[-vcd] > C[+vcd] / V_V
Vs > Vː / _C
Cː > C
Palatalisation (blocked in trilling environments)
{mp mb} {nt nd} {ɲc ɲɟ} {ŋg ŋk} > ᵐb ⁿd ᶮɟ ᵑg
Syncope, followed by metathesis of non-velar + velar and click genesis (prenasalised stops give nasal clicks)
ᵑg > ŋ
ᵐb ⁿd > b͡ʙ d͡r > ʙ ɖ / trilling environments (back vowels?) (c.f. Nias)
{ɸ x} > h
t > k > ʔ (chain shift)
p c k > f ɕ kʰ
b d ɖ ɟ g > p t ʈ t͡ɕ k
ᵐb ⁿd ᶮɟ > b d d͡ʑ
As for vowels: height mutation a la Tangut and Great Vowel Shift a la English

/m n ɲ ŋ/
/p b t d ʈ t͡ɕ d͡ʑ k kʰ ʔ/
/f s ɕ h/
/β z l j/
/ʙ r/

/k͡ʘ k͡ǀ k͡ǂ/
/g͡ʘ g͡ǀ g͡ǂ/
/ŋ͡ʘ ŋ͡ǀ ŋ͡ǂ/

+ possibly /t͡ɬ d͡ɮ ɬ/ and lateral clicks (derived from /dl n(d)l tl/ etc.), uvulars and uvular clicks (inherited from protolang, t > k > ʔ shift is probably a t > k > q > ʔ)

Maybe also have the Grimm’s Law-esque shift in the plosives happen to the clicks as well, with tenuis clicks becoming implosives via an ejective stage (*k͡ǁ q͡ǁ became /l/)

Here’s what it would look like with all that:
/m n ɲ ŋ ɴ/
/p b ɓ t d ɗ t͡ɬ d͡ɮ ʈ t͡ɕ d͡ʑ ʄ k kʰ q ʔ/
/f s ɬ ɕ χ h/
/β z l j/
/ʙ r/

/k͡ʘ k͡ǀ k͡ǁ k͡ǂ q͡ʘ q͡ǀ q͡ǁ q͡ǂ/
/ŋ͡ʘ ŋ͡ǀ ŋ͡ǁ ŋ͡ǂ ɴ͡ʘ ɴ͡ǀ ɴ͡ǁ ɴ͡ǂ/

And then dump a heavily historical orthography akin to Nort’s Arve on top of that.

[ophois]

Yet another project that I'll abandon within a few days. Out of character this project is inspired by the Goidelic substrate hypothesis as well as the outdated notion that Pictish was paleo-European. * indicates a placeholder name.

The Eteobrittanic languages are a pre-Indo-European language family native to northwest Europe, so named because they were spoken across the British Isles prior to Celtic settlement. Despite attempts to connect them to Indo-European, Vasconic, and Afroasiatic among others, the four languages have no known relatives besides each other.

Following the Celticisation of the British Isles, Eteobrittanic speakers were assimilated into Celtic populations, though a few pockets retained their languages. There was a great deal of borrowed words between the two, though mostly from Celtic to Eteobrittanic. Still, Eteobrittanic contributed a few roots; words such as Irish partán or the name of the Iceni tribe are evidently of Eteobrittanic origin.

The four languages are *Partraigian (extinct c. 19th century, spoken in Connacht, Ireland), *Caledonian (>50 speakers, Scottish Highlands), Snowdonian (~100 speakers, Snowdonia, Wales), and *Doggerlandic (4,500,000 speakers, *Doggerland). Of these two, Snowdonian and *Doggerlandic share several phonological and grammatical developments, and are therefore grouped together as the Icenic languages, named after their probable urheimat in modern-day East Anglia. With the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the proto-*Doggerlanders fled to their modern homeland in a similar manner to the Bretons, while the proto-Snowdonians were pushed to the other side of the island.

Proto-Eteobrittanic had the following phonological inventory:
/m n (ŋ)/ <m n n>
/p b t d (t͡s) k g/ <p b t d st c g>
/f s x/ <f s x>
/l r j w/ <l r j-i w-u>

/a aː e eː i iː o oː u uː/ <a ā e ē i ī o ō u ū>

There were diphthongs, but they are better analysed as vowel + glide sequences. Still, /j w/ are romanised <i u> when forming the offglide of a diphthong.

The phoneme sequence /st/ may have actually been realised /t͡s/. /n/ was [ŋ] before velars. */ji(ː) i(ː)j wu(ː) u(ː)w/ were disallowed.

The syllable structure was (C)(C)(C)V(C)(C). Initial clusters could be a non-glide + a glide, an obstruent or /m/ + a liquid, a fricative + a nasal, /s/ + a voiceless stop, a fricative + a nasal + a glide, or /s/ + a voiceless stop + a liquid or glide. Final clusters could be a glide + a non-glide, a liquid + an obstruent, or a nasal + a homorganic obstruent.

Here are some preliminary sound changes for Icenic:

• /tː/ became /st/.
• /b d g/ became /v ð ɣ/ when following a vowel, liquid, or glide and preceding one of the same category. Voiceless obstruents voiced in the same environment. In pre-Snowdonian, the same change occurred across word boundaries.
• Short vowels elided between a postvocalic obstruent (or /s/ + voiceless plosive cluster) and a following prevocalic liquid.
• /e i o u/ became /ɛ e ɔ o/ if followed by a single consonant (except for a plosive) in turn followed by /a/. If the vowel was word-initial, /j w/ were prothetised depending on the vowel. This change and the two after it conserved length and ignored offglides.
• /a o u/ became /ɛ ø y/ if the following syllable contained /i j/. Similarly, /a e i/ became /ɔ ɘ ɨ/ if the following syllable contained /u w/. These changes happened simultaneously, so /i/ could trigger i-umlaut and also be affected by u-umlaut.
• /n/ elided after liquids. /m/ became /w/ in the same environment.

To Snowdonian:

• /j w/ became /ɟ gw/ word-initially, though not if the previous word ended in a vowel or liquid.
• Word-initial /p t k/ became /pː st kː/ if the previous word ended in /s/.
• /pː kː/ became /f x/. Other geminates degeminated.
• Long diphthongs shortened.
• Short vowels deleted between a consonant and word-final resonant. The resonant then became syllabic.
• Word-final consonants deleted, except if they were syllabic.
• Before a high front vowel (i.e. /i iː y yː/), /k g ɣ/ became /st ɟ j/. /tj kj dj gj ðj ɣj/ analogously simplified to /st st ɟ ɟ j j/. Any /sst/ created by this change simplified to /st/.
• /ɔ ø y/, whether long, short, or part of a diphthong, became /a ɘ ɨ/.
• Word-finally, short vowels are lost, long vowels shorten, and diphthongs lost their offglide.
• Word-final resonants not preceded by a vowel became syllabic.
• /st/ became /θ/, except intervocalically.
• /a/ was coloured by preceding /ɟ j/ to /ɛ/.

To Doggerlandic:

• /v/ became an /u̯/ offglide in coda. If it followed /y u/, it dropped and lengthened the previous vowel if short. Otherwise, /v/ merged with /w/.
• Geminate /b d g/ became /mb nd ŋg/. Geminate /p k/ degeminated.
• /f/ became /θ/ if followed by /j/, a front vowel or a liquid. Otherwise, it backed to /x/.
• Short vowels, if either absolutely word-final or followed by word-final /s/, were lost. This was blocked if the vowel was preceded by a cluster which did not decrease in sonority.
• /s(t)s/ became /st/.
• Voiceless and voiced fricatives merged, being voiced between two voiced segments and voiceless otherwise.

Please note, this is still majorly WIP.

[Travis B.]

I have one slight quibble:

The following step:

• /pː kː/ became /f x/. Other geminates degeminated.

is not very plausible if plain /p k/ are preserved. I would personally do /p k/ > /f x/ followed by /pː kː/ > /p k/.

[foxcatdog]

*p: > *fp > *f
And the exact same change happened in brythonic.

[ophois]

I have one slight quibble:

The following step:

[ul]
[*]/pː kː/ became /f x/. Other geminates degeminated.
[/ul]

is not very plausible if plain /p k/ are preserved. I would personally do /p k/ > /f x/ followed by /pː kː/ > /p k/.

As foxcatdog pointed out, this is a change directly lifted from Brythonic. The only reason /tː/ didn't change is that it had already shifted to /st/.

*p: > *fp > *f
And the exact same change happened in brythonic.

[sasasha]

I like this. Abandon as you wish, but this has a nice character to it and it could be fun to work in toponymic data to build the lexicon.

Question: did the Anglo-Saxons skip Doggerland?

[Travis B.]

I have one slight quibble:

The following step:

[ul]
[*]/pː kː/ became /f x/. Other geminates degeminated.
[/ul]

is not very plausible if plain /p k/ are preserved. I would personally do /p k/ > /f x/ followed by /pː kː/ > /p k/.

As foxcatdog pointed out, this is a change directly lifted from Brythonic. The only reason /tː/ didn't change is that it had already shifted to /st/.

*p: > *fp > *f
And the exact same change happened in brythonic.

ANADEW in action.

[ophois]

I like this. Abandon as you wish, but this has a nice character to it and it could be fun to work in toponymic data to build the lexicon.

Question: did the Anglo-Saxons skip Doggerland?

Presumably, there was some settlement and my preliminary draft for Old Doggerlandic's vowel system rips height-harmonic diphthongs off from Old English, but the majority language and only native language nowadays is Doggerlandic.

I have one slight quibble:

The following step:

[ul]
[*]/pː kː/ became /f x/. Other geminates degeminated.
[/ul]

is not very plausible if plain /p k/ are preserved. I would personally do /p k/ > /f x/ followed by /pː kː/ > /p k/.

As foxcatdog pointed out, this is a change directly lifted from Brythonic. The only reason /tː/ didn't change is that it had already shifted to /st/.

*p: > *fp > *f
And the exact same change happened in brythonic.

ANADEW in action.

Even without Brythonic, I could see it happening quite easily via an aspirate or affricate stage.

[sasasha]

I like this. Abandon as you wish, but this has a nice character to it and it could be fun to work in toponymic data to build the lexicon.

Question: did the Anglo-Saxons skip Doggerland?

Presumably, there was some settlement and my preliminary draft for Old Doggerlandic's vowel system rips height-harmonic diphthongs off from Old English, but the majority language and only native language nowadays is Doggerlandic.

Ok, I am fascinated by how this might have gone down so a couple more questions:

• Did the Romans get to Doggerland?
• Was there Norse raiding and settlement in Doggerland?
• Was Doggerland part of Knútr's empire?
• If the answer is no to any of these questions (plus the Anglo-Saxon one), why?

I'm not going to ask why your Doggerland survives, though it's interesting what you're taking as a point of departure, as I'm not trying to derail you from your conlanging – I'm curious as to the linguistic situation in your Doggerland.

[ophois]

I like this. Abandon as you wish, but this has a nice character to it and it could be fun to work in toponymic data to build the lexicon.

Question: did the Anglo-Saxons skip Doggerland?

Presumably, there was some settlement and my preliminary draft for Old Doggerlandic's vowel system rips height-harmonic diphthongs off from Old English, but the majority language and only native language nowadays is Doggerlandic.

Ok, I am fascinated by how this might have gone down so a couple more questions:

• Did the Romans get to Doggerland?
• Was there Norse raiding and settlement in Doggerland?
• Was Doggerland part of Knútr's empire?
• If the answer is no to any of these questions (plus the Anglo-Saxon one), why?

I'm not going to ask why your Doggerland survives, though it's interesting what you're taking as a point of departure, as I'm not trying to derail you from your conlanging – I'm curious as to the linguistic situation in your Doggerland.

In order:

• Not really. There was influence, sure, but overall the situation was similar to Ireland. I'd imagine there might've been an expedition or two, but it was never properly conquered.
• There was a lot. Doggerlandic borrowed a lot of words from Old Norse.
• Yes, it was. Don't really see how it couldn't be.

[WeepingElf]

This looks like a nice project. As you may know, my main conlang, Old Albic, is also a language of pre-Celtic Britain, though my approach is different: for starters, I imagine it to have been an IE language related to Hittite, because of assumptions about the language of the Bell Beaker people (also, I don't have a surviving Doggerland). Alas, we don't know what the pre-Celtic languages of the British Isles were like, so your take is equally legitimate.