Conlang Random Thread

[Glass Half Baked]

Most of my conlangs are a posteriori, in part because I like history and historical linguistics, and in part because I think fitting a language into an existing context is a fun challenge. Out of curiosity, what ratio of a priori to a posteriori languages do you all gravitate toward?

[Raphael]

Most of my conlangs are a posteriori, in part because I like history and historical linguistics, and in part because I think fitting a language into an existing context is a fun challenge. Out of curiosity, what ratio of a priori to a posteriori languages do you all gravitate toward?

Back when I did some very limited conlanging (naming languages only), it was for a conworld project that would have been about a planet unrelated to Earth, so a posteriori wouldn't have made sense. Besides, not having to worry about plausible derivations of linguistic developments made things easier.

[malloc]

Most of my conlangs are a posteriori, in part because I like history and historical linguistics, and in part because I think fitting a language into an existing context is a fun challenge. Out of curiosity, what ratio of a priori to a posteriori languages do you all gravitate toward?

I have always gravitated toward a priori since my conlang ideas simply don't fit existing languages all that well.

[WeepingElf]

Most of my conlangs are a posteriori, in part because I like history and historical linguistics, and in part because I think fitting a language into an existing context is a fun challenge. Out of curiosity, what ratio of a priori to a posteriori languages do you all gravitate toward?

Most of my conlangs are a posteriori, too, as I explore lost linguistic lineages of our world in them. Also, I find it easier to work from an existing language than making up a new language entirely. However, for a fantasy world or an alien race, I'd do a priori languages, as their languages ought not to be related to languages of our planet. Also, you can of course do a priori diachronic conlanging, by using an a priori conlang as the protolanguage of a family.

[Ahzoh]

(Just had this post get eaten by an error and the form not being able to be resubmitted due to it, so now I have to retype it from scratch and remember what I wrote)

I have reduced the gender system of Vrkhazhian because I wanted to break the association of specific vowels with specific genders (e.g. u = fem, i = masc, a = neut), which I found to be limiting when it came to creating affixes.

Still, I feel uneasy about having most of the endings having the same vocality. Part of my issue is that I don't like certain combination of sounds, like /ix/.

bigender.png (23.61 KiB) Viewed 21497 times

I have thought about having a consonant-stem vs vowel-stem thing going on, but frankly, theoretically every stem should be consonant-stem due to the syllable structure.

[keenir]

(Just had this post get eaten by an error and the form not being able to be resubmitted due to it, so now I have to retype it from scratch and remember what I wrote)

I have reduced the gender system of Vrkhazhian because I wanted to break the association of specific vowels with specific genders (e.g. u = fem, i = masc, a = neut), which I found to be limiting when it came to creating affixes.

Still, I feel uneasy about having most of the endings having the same vocality.

maybe I'm failing to understand here...if you want to break an association & end having the endings having the same vocality...perhaps expand/enlarge the vowel system or the gender system?

[malloc]

Still, I feel uneasy about having most of the endings having the same vocality. Part of my issue is that I don't like certain combination of sounds, like /ix/.

Perhaps the language underwent a sound change that eliminated this sequence. Many languages avoid high and especially front vowels around guttural consonants in various ways. The language might lower the vowel yielding /ex/ or front the consonant yielding /iS/ or something along those lines. That would introduce some interesting variation and surface irregularity to the inflectional system as well.

[Ahzoh]

(Just had this post get eaten by an error and the form not being able to be resubmitted due to it, so now I have to retype it from scratch and remember what I wrote)

I have reduced the gender system of Vrkhazhian because I wanted to break the association of specific vowels with specific genders (e.g. u = fem, i = masc, a = neut), which I found to be limiting when it came to creating affixes.

Still, I feel uneasy about having most of the endings having the same vocality.

maybe I'm failing to understand here...if you want to break an association & end having the endings having the same vocality...perhaps expand/enlarge the vowel system or the gender system?

My conlang only has four vowels, especially because I hate /o/ and o-like vowels

The old system for reference

fourgenderednouns.png (34.63 KiB) Viewed 21474 times

The formula of all the cases being gender vowel + consonant got boring. Adding more vowels doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

[Ahzoh]

Still, I feel uneasy about having most of the endings having the same vocality. Part of my issue is that I don't like certain combination of sounds, like /ix/.

Perhaps the language underwent a sound change that eliminated this sequence. Many languages avoid high and especially front vowels around guttural consonants in various ways. The language might lower the vowel yielding /ex/ or front the consonant yielding /iS/ or something along those lines. That would introduce some interesting variation and surface irregularity to the inflectional system as well.

Well it could be like Hittite, where every stem essentially became a-stems. Hurro-Urartian is similar where every root has a thematic i-vowel

[Ahzoh]

I think to solve my issue, I could justify some vocalic-stems as the remnants of some afroasiatic style "root extensions":

• -uw = an avoidance or venerative suffix
  Examples: ḥaǰ-uw "boar", sis-uw "the god Sisu", mam-uw "the goddess Mamu"
• -bi = kinship?
  Examples: raḥ-bi "man", lum-bi "woman", sim-bi "child"
• -ǰi = augmentive?
  Examples: jan-ǰi "king, ruler", ma-ǰi "sea", nar-ǰi "the god Nardi"

[jal]

Out of curiosity, what ratio of a priori to a posteriori languages do you all gravitate toward?

Except for Sajiwan (which is a Caribbean English Creole, and as such bound by the general rules of CECs), all my conlangs are a priori, though Fake Latinic and Fake Germanic of course heavily borrow from both grammar and vocabulary of the languages they immitate. This is mostly because I find it less restrictive, and easier, to create a language a priori, and a lot of my conlangs start out as though experiments. June 2016, which I plan to revisit one day, can be said to be somewhat a posteriori, as it is part of the Balkan Sprachbund and as such has grammatical features and some vocabulary that is common for such languages.


JAL

[hwhatting]

The only conlangs I'm continuously working on, the languages of Tarra, are a posteriori - Tautisca is a Western Indo-European language, Lemba Romana, Mədan and Ilan are Romlangs.

[Morkai5]

The dictionary of my conlang only includes part of speech and the translation to English and my natlang. What else should include?

[bradrn]

The dictionary of my conlang only includes part of speech and the translation to English and my natlang. What else should include?

I suggest reading Coward & Grimes’s Making Dictionaries — it’s written with reference to the MDF software in particular, but has a lot of broadly relevant advice too.

More generally, I strongly recommend reading zompist’s Lexipedia.

[Morkai5]

I suggest reading Coward & Grimes’s Making Dictionaries — it’s written with reference to the MDF software in particular, but has a lot of broadly relevant advice too.

More generally, I strongly recommend reading zompist’s Lexipedia.

Thanks, will do!

[xxx]

Most of my conlangs are a posteriori, in part because I like history and historical linguistics, and in part because I think fitting a language into an existing context is a fun challenge. Out of curiosity, what ratio of a priori to a posteriori languages do you all gravitate toward?

here, a priori conlang in the strong sense, using semantic primes and no linguistics...

[malloc]

Currently working on the phonoaesthetics of my latest project. I am looking for ways to avoid too many harsh consonants in successive syllables, as this project includes not only clicks but aspirate and ejective consonants. One obvious approach is lenition with plosives becoming fricatives or approximants between vowels. However this process would clearly need some limitations to avoid the improbable situation of plosives rarely appearing within words, e.g. something like *tapakatapaka > tawağarawağa.

[Richard W]

However this process would clearly need some limitations to avoid the improbable situation of plosives rarely appearing within words, e.g. something like *tapakatapaka > tawağarawağa.

Prakrit in tis development from Old Indic dropped single unaspirated dental and velar plosives between vowels, so the results need not be too dire. Two things preserved other plosives between vowels:

• Clusters with plosives were reduced to single plosives
• Retroflex and palatal stops were preserved.

[keenir]

However this process would clearly need some limitations to avoid the improbable situation of plosives rarely appearing within words, e.g. something like *tapakatapaka > tawağarawağa.

Something that is improbable, is not impossible; if anything, it makes it further unique. To my eye, having plosives only on the initial and closing syllables of a word, would be a good way - a fine shortcut - to telling where a word begins and ends, even if the script lacks spaces between words. Just a thought.

I like what you're doing so far, but its your call.

[bradrn]

However this process would clearly need some limitations to avoid the improbable situation of plosives rarely appearing within words, e.g. something like *tapakatapaka > tawağarawağa.

‘Improbable’? Isn’t Spanish like that? (Amongst other languages.)