Zompist Bboard Again

Xwtek wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:06 am Is Locative case -> Resultantive realistic? This applies to an adjective. Most verbs can't form resultative though. Later, many adjective gets derived to form stative verbs. But the original adjective is still used for compounding and resultative construction.

Probably from "into" meaning. I spear it into dead one > I spear it dead.

Late reply, and I don't even know what a resultative is, but my first reaction is "why not?" Cases get used for all sorts of things beyond their "intended" usage, and you have an explanation involving a metaphorical use, which looks fine to me.

masako wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:33 am

A comparison of Moya and Omyatloko.

It is beautiful. And I like how those two (?) characters at the far right go into each other.

holbuzvala wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:41 pm 2. insert an epenthetical consonant - I'm open to ideas here of what might be suitable. My consonant inventory, minus labialised and palatilised consonants, is: /p t k pʰ tʰ kʰ s m n ŋ l r ɣ ʕ/

If you go with this idea you can always just use plain old [ʔ]. What is the exact nature of you /a/? Is it front? In that case maaaybe [j] could be used. If it's back [ʕ] would make a lot of sense. If it's central, hmm... I've heard a hypothesis that Japanese got its rhotic as an epenthetic consonant. What is the exact nature of your /r/?

I have finally (or arguably 'again') finished a rough draft of a description of the syntax of basic verbal clauses in Rawàng Ata...

...it's forty pages long, and features 73 (sets of) examples. Finishing it is quite a relief.


On the positive side, it's a huge chunk of the grammar of the language.

On the negative side, it's still not enough to enable any but the most simplistic translations into the language.


It's also very utilitarian and inelegant.

I like utilitarian and inelegant.

You remind me in a tangential way of this map produced by the US Natl Weather Service, which looks like something I would make. The low resolution (this link is from 2015, but theyre still churning out maps like that), black-and-white logo, and the legend that robotically tells us what color the title and state boundaries are in all would let me know this came from the NWS even if it wasnt labeled as such. I think the "Median First" box might even be intended to tell us what color the text itself is in. This would make sense if NWS maps were regularly parsed by automated programs that actually need those things, but as far as I know, they're just for us humans.

I may not read a 40-page grammar .... I would have a difficult time getting myself to read 40 pages of even my own work ... but if you want to post it I'll take a look.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:11 pm I have finally (or arguably 'again') finished a rough draft of a description of the syntax of basic verbal clauses in Rawàng Ata...

I'd be eager to read that, if you're making it public.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:11 pm I have finally (or arguably 'again') finished a rough draft of a description of the syntax of basic verbal clauses in Rawàng Ata...

I'd be glad to read it as well.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:11 pm I have finally (or arguably 'again') finished a rough draft of a description of the syntax of basic verbal clauses in Rawàng Ata...

I would be very interested in reading more on Rawàng Ata.

Err... huh. That's a very flattering response, people, and honestly not expected.

To be honest, it would actually be helpful for others to look at it, to see whether anyone else can make sense of it - I've tried to set it out clearly, but it's an area in which Rawàng Ata is quite weird in some ways, so there's lots of details and a few places where I've had to make up terms or use them in debateable ways.

I'll give it a spellcheck and think about how I might share it (I can't just do a forum post because I've made use of Word's formatting - I guess a pdf might be sensible...)

Generally speaking, is it acceptable to pair [ç] with [ʑ], despite the difference in sibilance, because [ʝ] sounds more similar to [j] than [ʑ], or could [ʑ] be articulated weakly enough to be [ʑ̞] rather than a strict [ʝ]?

Additionally, the sci-fi/sci-fan version of my conlang has [ɻ̊˔, ɻ˔] that sound much closer to [ʂ, ʐ] than to [ɻ̊, ɻ]. Are [ʂ˕, ʐ˕] more appropriate transcriptions for those sounds than [ɻ̊˔, ɻ˔]?

TurkeySloth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:26 pm Generally speaking, is it acceptable to pair [ç] with [ʑ], despite the difference in sibilance, because [ʝ] sounds more similar to [j] than [ʑ], or could [ʑ] be articulated weakly enough to be [ʑ̞] rather than a strict [ʝ]?

That’s certainly a bit unusual, but doesn’t seem at all implausible to me.

Additionally, the sci-fi/sci-fan version of my conlang has [ɻ̊˔, ɻ˔] that sound much closer to [ʂ, ʐ] than to [ɻ̊, ɻ]. Are [ʂ˕, ʐ˕] more appropriate transcriptions for those sounds than [ɻ̊˔, ɻ˔]?

[ɻ̊˔, ɻ˔] are non-sibilant fricatives, while [ʂ, ʐ] are sibilants. So the notation depends on whether you want to indicate sibilance or not.

TurkeySloth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:26 pm Generally speaking, is it acceptable to pair [ç] with [ʑ], despite the difference in sibilance, because [ʝ] sounds more similar to [j] than [ʑ], or could [ʑ] be articulated weakly enough to be [ʑ̞] rather than a strict [ʝ]?

Hall, The Phonology of Coronals, has ɕ ʑ patterning with coronals and ç ʝ patterning as dorsals (and I think doesn't take this to be controversial). He's less sure about j---it can pattern with coronals, but maybe there are languages in which it's a dorsal.

Anyway there's nothing wrong with having a ɕ ʑ j series, I think.

(...if anyone knows of something that updates or refutes Hall's argument, I'd be glad to learn of it.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:48 pm

TurkeySloth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:26 pm Generally speaking, is it acceptable to pair [ç] with [ʑ], despite the difference in sibilance, because [ʝ] sounds more similar to [j] than [ʑ], or could [ʑ] be articulated weakly enough to be [ʑ̞] rather than a strict [ʝ]?

That’s certainly a bit unusual, but doesn’t seem at all implausible to me.

Additionally, the sci-fi/sci-fan version of my conlang has [ɻ̊˔, ɻ˔] that sound much closer to [ʂ, ʐ] than to [ɻ̊, ɻ]. Are [ʂ˕, ʐ˕] more appropriate transcriptions for those sounds than [ɻ̊˔, ɻ˔]?

[ɻ̊˔, ɻ˔] are non-sibilant fricatives, while [ʂ, ʐ] are sibilants. So the notation depends on whether you want to indicate sibilance or not.

I see. And, thanks for the help.

Phonetically, the sounds are non-sibilant, but, acoustically, they sound like [ʂ, ʐ] and are non-rhotic.

To clarify: after reading this article, the correct classification of the language's [ɻ̊˔, ɻ˔] is "strident" similar to English's [f, v], or, as it's put for at least one sibilant on an example table (too lazy to look it up), "not sibilant enough." What are the correct transcriptions in each of those cases?

https://www.frathwiki.com/Amal/writing

I switched over to an adaptation of Arabic for Amal. It's just prettier and more functional than the script I made.

masako wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:44 am https://www.frathwiki.com/Amal/writing

I switched over to an adaptation of Arabic for Amal. It's just prettier and more functional than the script I made.

I know this is just an incomplete draft, but I wanted to point out that وئبِنتَكلا for webintakla is probably wrong. You say /e/ is not written inside a word, so maybe it should be وبِنتَكلا.

Writing the second /a/ of aryemeshilan with an alif, اريمشِلان, seems strange and wrong, but maybe this involves a rule about subject agreement suffixes that you haven't written down. Would [daːʔɛʃan] be written دَقشان or دَقشَن?

Do you have any way to make the entire world monolingual? The world is extremely small compared to earth, but it's large compared to average language distribution. (It's about 7000 km2) My people are semi agrarian, meaning that they're doing agriculture during summer, but only hunts and gathers in winter. There is also a horse.

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:14 pm Do you have any way to make the entire world monolingual? The world is extremely small compared to earth, but it's large compared to average language distribution. (It's about 7000 km2) My people are semi agrarian, meaning that they're doing agriculture during summer, but only hunts and gathers in winter. There is also a horse.

Uh, just exist? 7000 Km2 of land is extremely small, that's 1/3 of the size of El Salvador, or about the size of Palestine including Gaza + 1000 Km2 more.

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:14 pm Do you have any way to make the entire world monolingual? The world is extremely small compared to earth, but it's large compared to average language distribution. (It's about 7000 km2)

You could make agriculture having spread recently, with the agriculturists displacing the preceding hunter-gatherers everywhere. With a big area like this, you would still have dialects, though.

My people are semi agrarian, meaning that they're doing agriculture during summer, but only hunts and gathers in winter. There is also a horse.

Why semi-agrarian? Every agrarian society in areas with harsh winters is like this, the only fresh food they can get in winter is through hunting, and gathering plant-based food that is available in winter. Mostly, of course, they rely on the food they store for winter. Or do you mean they're nomadic in winter? But that doesn't make much sense to me.

I thought the whole point of agriculture was that you didnt need to worry about food shortages in winter because grains are a food type that resists spoilage. Of course not all agriculture is grain, but most of what isnt is at least capable of being preserved in some manner during cold weather.

7000 square kilometers is indeed very small. I dont think you need to worry about language barriers.

Ser wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:32 pm

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:14 pm Do you have any way to make the entire world monolingual? The world is extremely small compared to earth, but it's large compared to average language distribution. (It's about 7000 km2) My people are semi agrarian, meaning that they're doing agriculture during summer, but only hunts and gathers in winter. There is also a horse.

Uh, just exist? 7000 Km2 of land is extremely small, that's 1/3 of the size of El Salvador, or about the size of Palestine inclu (ding Gaza + 1000 Km2 more.

The world is not earthlike. It's actually closer to Discworld, except smaller. Indeed, this world is at early stage of agriculture. (That's why the culture is largely matriarchial). I don't have a problem with dialect, but in an agrarian culture without civilization, the language density is big. (But I don't have proof in that, that's what I perceive about language density, so if that statement is wrong, please tell me.)

Probably semi-agrarian is a bad word to describe the society. They do store the harvest for winter. However, there is still a big emphasis on hunting, especially during winter. Actually it's meant to be transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian.