Conlang Random Thread

[Travis B.]

I found this hard to believe so I looked this up, and it looks like German only has nasal vowels in the same sense that English does, i.e. not really.

To reference a highly reliable source of linguistics information, StG has borrowed nasal vowels from French, but in many cases in actual speech today they have broken into sequences of lax vowels followed by [ŋ] or [n] (compare with modern Polish in this regard).

Yes, that’s the article I looked at.

This still represents, though, a greater degree of adaptation to French phonology in loans than English has undergone with more recent French loans, where nasal vowels are normally not borrowed as such but rather are spelling-pronounced when borrowed into English.

Perhaps, though don’t some English-speakers use the nasal vowels?

To me at least, attempting to emulate French nasal vowels in English sounds very affected; I have practically never actually heard anyone do this IRL. This is even in English varieties like my own which have their own native non-negligible (but non-phonemic) vowel nasality. (The only accommodation for French vowel nasality that is common in my experience is to pronounce French <en> before {C,#} as /ɑːn/; for instance I do this in words such as envelope and en masse.)

[jal]

A good example of this occurring in a natlang without intensive bilingualism is the borrowing of nasal vowels from French by German, as I highly doubt that a significant portion of the German population ever spoke French.

The Wikipedia page you quote says "French loanwords, once very numerous", so I would assume that French had the same kind of status in Germany that it had in large swaths of Europe a few centuries ago (including the Netherlands and Poland), i.e. the elite spoke French; and as it was a lingua franca throughout Europe (and not only in diplomacy), many people would've had at least some contact with French, not to mention the situation in the border regions, where French and German were used and understood by about everyone, culminating in the heavily French-influenced German dialects of Luxemburg and surrounding areas. And yet even Lëtzebuergesch doesn't have nasal vowels. So I call, without further evidence, total bullocks on the "Germany has nasal vowels in French words" claim.

That said, in my native Dutch we have imported a large number of French words, most of which have been shoehorned into Dutch phonology ("trottoir" /tɹɒtˈwɑː(ɹ)/ -> /trɔˈtʋar/, -> /kɔ̃.dyk.tœʁ/ -> /ˌkɔndʏkˈtøːr/), a treatment that also befalls most modern English imports ("computer" -> /kɔm.ˈpju.tər/), yet some of these have sounds that do not appear in Dutch otherwise ("beige" -> /ˈbɛːʒə/, with long /ɛː/ and /ʒ/). However, this still doesn't fall in the category "the native phonology itself shifts to accommodate the foreign words" as bradrn wrote (not, for that matter, do examples of nasals in Germany). I don't think linguists generally count phonemes that only occur in loans as part of the "native phonology" of a language.


JAL

[bradrn]

I don't think linguists generally count phonemes that only occur in loans as part of the "native phonology" of a language.

Really? Then would you say that /ʒ/ is not part of the ‘native phonology’ of English? I think there’s a point at which loans are sufficiently well integrated into the language that speakers don’t perceive any difference between them and native words.

[Travis B.]

I don't think linguists generally count phonemes that only occur in loans as part of the "native phonology" of a language.

Really? Then would you say that /ʒ/ is not part of the ‘native phonology’ of English? I think there’s a point at which loans are sufficiently well integrated into the language that speakers don’t perceive any difference between them and native words.

Totally agreed here. Just try asking the average English-speaker what words in English are of French or Old Norse origin and see what you get. (OTOH words of Latinate or Greek origin in English are a little more obvious.)

About /ʒ/, one could argue that final /ʒ/ is not entirely integrated in English, considering the tendency of native English-speakers to substitute /dʒ/ for it in that position. However, medial /ʒ/ in words such as vision is entirely integrated without a doubt.

[Travis B.]

A good example of this occurring in a natlang without intensive bilingualism is the borrowing of nasal vowels from French by German, as I highly doubt that a significant portion of the German population ever spoke French.

The Wikipedia page you quote says "French loanwords, once very numerous", so I would assume that French had the same kind of status in Germany that it had in large swaths of Europe a few centuries ago (including the Netherlands and Poland), i.e. the elite spoke French; and as it was a lingua franca throughout Europe (and not only in diplomacy), many people would've had at least some contact with French, not to mention the situation in the border regions, where French and German were used and understood by about everyone, culminating in the heavily French-influenced German dialects of Luxemburg and surrounding areas. And yet even Lëtzebuergesch doesn't have nasal vowels. So I call, without further evidence, total bullocks on the "Germany has nasal vowels in French words" claim.

Of course French was used by the elite in Germany a few centuries ago; that is not in contradition with stating that most German-speakers probably also did not speak French outside of areas like Luxembourg and Alsace. The elite in Germany is not the same thing as most German-speakers.

Synchronically StG may not have nasal vowels in words of French origin just like synchronically English does not have /y/ in words of French origin. But that does not mean they were not special-cased when they were borrowed (e.g. like how English borrowed French /y/ but has since turned it into /juː/), even if borrowed French nasals in StG have since undergone sound change to separate their nasality into a coda nasal (like happened in Polish, as I mentioned).

[Man in Space]

I don't think linguists generally count phonemes that only occur in loans as part of the "native phonology" of a language.

Really? Then would you say that /ʒ/ is not part of the ‘native phonology’ of English? I think there’s a point at which loans are sufficiently well integrated into the language that speakers don’t perceive any difference between them and native words.

Totally agreed here. Just try asking the average English-speaker what words in English are of French or Old Norse origin and see what you get. (OTOH words of Latinate or Greek origin in English are a little more obvious.)

About /ʒ/, one could argue that final /ʒ/ is not entirely integrated in English, considering the tendency of native English-speakers to substitute /dʒ/ for it in that position. However, medial /ʒ/ in words such as vision is entirely integrated without a doubt.

Aleutian ~ allusion

[jal]

I don't think linguists generally count phonemes that only occur in loans as part of the "native phonology" of a language.

Really? Then would you say that /ʒ/ is not part of the ‘native phonology’ of English? I think there’s a point at which loans are sufficiently well integrated into the language that speakers don’t perceive any difference between them and native words.

Now you're just strawmanning. We weren't talking about /ʒ/, we were talking about nasals in German. If there's a handful of words that are semi-recently borrowed into a language, and they both sound and are spelt like the words in the donor language, then I dare say that no, they're generally not counted as native. "vision" has been in English since the early 14th century at least, and "measure" seems to originally not even have had /ʒ/ (at least its origin is given as "mesurer").

Totally agreed here.

You are agreeing with a strawman position.

Synchronically StG may not have nasal vowels in words of French origin (...). But that does not mean they were not special-cased when they were borrowed

For one, nasals seem quite difficult for speakers of languages that don't have them (anacdotically, a French teacher I know says that nasals are the #1 problem with Dutch kids when pronouncing French). So why would the illerate German peasents in, say, Saxony, a) use French words at all and b) try to approximate nasals that they have never heard a native speaker say? Anyway, except that one line in Wikipedia, you haven't got a shred of evidence that nasals ever existed in borrowed French words in German, so it cannot serve as proof for anything (and that's how this argument started).


JAL

[Travis B.]

I don't think linguists generally count phonemes that only occur in loans as part of the "native phonology" of a language.

Really? Then would you say that /ʒ/ is not part of the ‘native phonology’ of English? I think there’s a point at which loans are sufficiently well integrated into the language that speakers don’t perceive any difference between them and native words.

Now you're just strawmanning. We weren't talking about /ʒ/, we were talking about nasals in German. If there's a handful of words that are semi-recently borrowed into a language, and they both sound and are spelt like the words in the donor language, then I dare say that no, they're generally not counted as native. "vision" has been in English since the early 14th century at least, and "measure" seems to originally not even have had /ʒ/ (at least its origin is given as "mesurer").

But it was you who were claiming that loanwords don't affect the phonology of their borrowing languages without substantial bilingualism. You did not limit your initial claim. You can't go back and claim that your broad statement really only meant something much more limited.

About 'measure', the matter is that this is a case of French /y/ > English /juː/ with the resulting /zj/ > /ʒ/. This primarily happens with loans into English, even if French never happened to have /ʒ/ or [ʒ] in this word.

Synchronically StG may not have nasal vowels in words of French origin (...). But that does not mean they were not special-cased when they were borrowed

For one, nasals seem quite difficult for speakers of languages that don't have them (anacdotically, a French teacher I know says that nasals are the #1 problem with Dutch kids when pronouncing French). So why would the illerate German peasents in, say, Saxony, a) use French words at all and b) try to approximate nasals that they have never heard a native speaker say? Anyway, except that one line in Wikipedia, you haven't got a shred of evidence that nasals ever existed in borrowed French words in German, so it cannot serve as proof for anything (and that's how this argument started).

I remember reading a discussion on teh Interwebs (it may have been here on the ZBB, but phpBB's search feature is so broken as to be useless) where people were discussing the pronunciation of nasal vowels in French loans in German, and the general view of them of them was that they were pronounced as lax vowels followed by [ŋ].

[jal]

But it was you who were claiming that loanwords don't affect the phonology of their borrowing languages without substantial bilingualism.

Given the vast amount of words from (Old) French origin in English, I'd say that substantial bilingualism was indeed the case back then.


JAL

[Raholeun]

I remember reading a discussion on teh Interwebs (it may have been here on the ZBB, but phpBB's search feature is so broken as to be useless) where people were discussing the pronunciation of nasal vowels in French loans in German, and the general view of them of them was that they were pronounced as lax vowels followed by [ŋ].

Bitte.

[Travis B.]

I remember reading a discussion on teh Interwebs (it may have been here on the ZBB, but phpBB's search feature is so broken as to be useless) where people were discussing the pronunciation of nasal vowels in French loans in German, and the general view of them of them was that they were pronounced as lax vowels followed by [ŋ].

Bitte.

That's exactly what I was looking for.

[AwfullyAmateur]

Despite common superstition, the inherent cleanliness of the cat will not ward off STDs in any pleasure houses, as that is not how biology works.

^I love when conlanging leads to worldbuilding such as this.

[Tsimaah]

I don't think linguists generally count phonemes that only occur in loans as part of the "native phonology" of a language.

Really? Then would you say that /ʒ/ is not part of the ‘native phonology’ of English? I think there’s a point at which loans are sufficiently well integrated into the language that speakers don’t perceive any difference between them and native words.

Now you're just strawmanning. We weren't talking about /ʒ/, we were talking about nasals in German. If there's a handful of words that are semi-recently borrowed into a language, and they both sound and are spelt like the words in the donor language, then I dare say that no, they're generally not counted as native. "vision" has been in English since the early 14th century at least, and "measure" seems to originally not even have had /ʒ/ (at least its origin is given as "mesurer").

Totally agreed here.

You are agreeing with a strawman position.

There exists a word I have heard a handful of times in English, pronounced /ʒʊʒ/ (I've never seen it in print, it has no agreed upon spellings, Merriam-Webster says zhoozh or zhuzh or zhoosh), meaning something like "spruce it up" (it is a very affected word), that clearly isn't a loanword or the product of historical sound change. My best guess its that it is an ideophone of some sort, the first time I heard it used, I immediately understood what it meant, somehow, from context and how it "sounded" in my minds ear.

[sasasha]

Really? Then would you say that /ʒ/ is not part of the ‘native phonology’ of English? I think there’s a point at which loans are sufficiently well integrated into the language that speakers don’t perceive any difference between them and native words.

Now you're just strawmanning. We weren't talking about /ʒ/, we were talking about nasals in German. If there's a handful of words that are semi-recently borrowed into a language, and they both sound and are spelt like the words in the donor language, then I dare say that no, they're generally not counted as native. "vision" has been in English since the early 14th century at least, and "measure" seems to originally not even have had /ʒ/ (at least its origin is given as "mesurer").

Totally agreed here.

You are agreeing with a strawman position.

There exists a word I have heard a handful of times in English, pronounced /ʒʊʒ/ (I've never seen it in print, it has no agreed upon spellings, Merriam-Webster says zhoozh or zhuzh or zhoosh), meaning something like "spruce it up" (it is a very affected word), that clearly isn't a loanword or the product of historical sound change. My best guess its that it is an ideophone of some sort, the first time I heard it used, I immediately understood what it meant, somehow, from context and how it "sounded" in my minds ear.

One of the best words. Here’s a whole NY Times article about its possible etymology, which, whilst it points interestingly to Polari as a probable source, doesn’t really address its ultimate origins.

My husband thought it was probably Yiddish, which is another theory. But evidence is lacking. My own guess is that it’s probably an ideophonic embodiment of an English person’s sociolinguistic associations with /ʒ/ ‒ that is, an extremely French-sounding syllable to an English ear. Thus suggesting making something as chic as possible.

BTW, 16th century settings of liturgical music provide four syllables for ‘temptation’, and such settings are still performed with the pronunciation /si.on/. I can’t think of examples to illustrate, but I’d guess that ‘vision’ once had three syllables and either /s/ or /z/, not /ʒ/.

[Travis B.]

BTW, 16th century settings of liturgical music provide four syllables for ‘temptation’, and such settings are still performed with the pronunciation /si.on/. I can’t think of examples to illustrate, but I’d guess that ‘vision’ once had three syllables and either /s/ or /z/, not /ʒ/.

/ʒ/ in vision and similar words is descended from historical /zj/, either from direct borrowing (typically either directly from Oïl or from Latin under French influence), or from /z/ followed by EModE /ɪw/ originally from Oïl /y/ or from Latin /uː/ under French influence.

[sasasha]

BTW, 16th century settings of liturgical music provide four syllables for ‘temptation’, and such settings are still performed with the pronunciation /si.on/. I can’t think of examples to illustrate, but I’d guess that ‘vision’ once had three syllables and either /s/ or /z/, not /ʒ/.

/ʒ/ in vision and similar words is descended from historical /zj/, either from direct borrowing (typically either directly from Oïl or from Latin under French influence), or from /z/ followed by EModE /ɪw/ originally from Oïl /y/ or from Latin /uː/ under French influence.

Thank you! I should probably have looked that up ‒ but I’m grateful.

[AwfullyAmateur]

I've decided to use w to represent ʊ.

[Travis B.]

I've decided to use w to represent ʊ.

What is your ⟨u⟩?

[Travis B.]

I have decided that in Rihalle Kaafi numbers greater than nine act as nouns and heads of noun phrases in which they qualify other noun phrases, with the numbers taking on the appropriate syntactic role and being in construct state and the nouns the qualify being in genitive case.

T'uunahay taaseewe siwiya.

T'uu

eat.PFV

=na

=SUBJ.1.S

=hay

=3.P.M.INAN

taa=

two=

seew

twenty

-e

-CONST

siw

chickpeas

-i

-GEN

-ya.

-P.M

I ate forty chickpeas.

I have also decided that the normal way to express cumulative coordination is simple apposition, even though the use of the comitative adposition may also be used to express cumulative coordination of two noun phrase.

T'uuwahay saqr siwa hebba.

T'uu

eat.PFV

=wa

=SUBJ.1.P

=hay

=3.P.M.INAN

saqr

grain

siwa

chickpeas

hebba.

fava_beans

We ate grain, chickpeas, and fava beans.

[AwfullyAmateur]

I've decided to use w to represent ʊ.

What is your ⟨u⟩?

That is simply u