Zompist Bboard Again

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:55 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:39 am Each syllable is a rectangular block, read from top/left to bottom/right, in that order: feature(s) - vowel - feature.

I don't understand the writing of tlammas 'lame'. Does it have a different 's' to the other words, and why is it written as a superscript?

I interpreted it as a subscript for das — the same symbol as in dis, sôr, sa. (Though curiously not mas.)

Another oddity: it appears that both -n and -m are written the same way. Is this correct?

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:55 am I don't understand the writing of tlammas 'lame'. Does it have a different 's' to the other words, and why is it written as a superscript?

Do all consonants have features? How is the null initial consonant written?

Oh, you caught a spelling mistake! The final s is missing, I wrote tlamma...
The superscript indicates a nasal, and the < symbol indicates a nasal - the curve underneath is a. There should be a 3 symbol subscript.

Not all consonants get features, by the way. For instnce ^ + ° are used for d, but t is simply °. The 3-symbole for s really stands for the whole consonant. But it can be used as a feature; if you use the script for a language with /x/, you can use + and 3 to represent it.

The null consonant isn't written. Neither is y, by the way.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:20 am Another oddity: it appears that both -n and -m are written the same way. Is this correct?

Syllable-finally, yes, especially before m or a stop, you only get the < symbol which indicates a nasal. (Due to assimilation, there's no ambiguity as to which nasal it is.)

But -mas (well, really -ma) gets the labial superscript as well, which distinguishes it from n.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:25 am But -mas (well, really -ma) gets the labial superscript as well, which distinguishes it from n.

I assume that’s the ⁀ shape on top of the syllable? It would make sense that that’s the labial component, since I can see that it’s used for both m- and p-. (It would also appear that those two phonemes are written the same way… is that really the case, or am I misanalysing this?)

Additionally, I think I’ve finally managed to figure out what’s been bothering me about this script: there’s quite a lot of space between the various components, and little regularity, so it gives me a feeling of ‘disconnectedness’, as if it were just a collection of lines and curves rather than a set of coherent graphemes. To remedy this, I suggest trying to fit each grapheme within a box to reduce the space between components, as well as adding some regularisation, by e.g. making lines meet at right angles, aligning the subparts of each grapheme etc. I’ve tried redrawing your example text along these lines, and I’ve had some success so far, though I’m still not entirely sure what the best way to go about this is.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:42 am I assume that’s the ⁀ shape on top of the syllable?

That's the one, yes.

(It would also appear that those two phonemes are written the same way… is that really the case, or am I misanalysing this?)

p is written with ⁀ alone, m is ⁀ with <

[quote}Additionally, I think I’ve finally managed to figure out what’s been bothering me about this script: there’s quite a lot of space between the various components, and little regularity, so it gives me a feeling of ‘disconnectedness’, as if it were just a collection of lines and curves rather than a set of coherent graphemes. To remedy this, I suggest trying to fit each grapheme within a box to reduce the space between components, as well as adding some regularisation, by e.g. making lines meet at right angles, aligning the subparts of each grapheme etc.[/quote]

Thanks for the feedback! I get what you mean and I'll try to integrate these in a more coherent whole... I think I should work out all possible syllables (even though the components are regular/featural, I think in current usage it's more like a regular syllabary).

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 8:49 am

(It would also appear that those two phonemes are written the same way… is that really the case, or am I misanalysing this?)

p is written with ⁀ alone, m is ⁀ with <

Yet the < appears at the bottom of the previous syllable… this seems pretty strange to me. Amongst other problems, how do you represent syllables starting with m-?

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 8:56 am Yet the < appears at the bottom of the previous syllable… this seems pretty strange to me. Amongst other problems, how do you represent syllables starting with m-?

Think of final '<' as 'n', which may then assimilate to a following consonant. There's clearly no contrast between -nm- and -mm- - or if there is, it's not worth worrying about. Old writing systems leave a lot to the reader's knowledge of the language.

Yes, that's it. It really needs a picture, but a cell phone isn't the tool for the job. I'll upload one when I get my graphics tablet back.

Oh, how about ASCII-art (well, Unicode-art?)

This is tlam
Lateral L + dental ° = tl
‿ = a
< = n or m

This is mas:
Labial ⁀ + nasal < = m
‿ = a
3 = s

*tlanmas wouldn't be possible in Simbri so there's really no point specifying which nasal it is.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 8:49 am Thanks for the feedback! I get what you mean and I'll try to integrate these in a more coherent whole... I think I should work out all possible syllables (even though the components are regular/featural, I think in current usage it's more like a regular syllabary).

I think it's generally fine as it is. Ragged dangly bits are quite natural, e.g. CVC-Brahmic scripts, or even Tibetan.

What is that flourish after 'Piyon' in the sample?

I've been thinking about how one would encode the script. While one could adopt combining jamo, I'm inclined to go for an invisible syllable-separator. One could use ZWNJ, although a script-specific invisible syllable separator would make sense.

Does the same feature (ɪʲm ɡuessinɡ lenɡth) character correspond to the circumflex in kâdas and sôrsa?

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 4:16 pm

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 8:49 am Thanks for the feedback! I get what you mean and I'll try to integrate these in a more coherent whole... I think I should work out all possible syllables (even though the components are regular/featural, I think in current usage it's more like a regular syllabary).

I think it's generally fine as it is. Ragged dangly bits are quite natural, e.g. CVC-Brahmic scripts, or even Tibetan.

I’m not sure that ‘ragged dangly bits’ are quite the right way to describe this script… the components are fairly disconnected, but for the most part they do fit within a box without dangling out. My complaint was more about the fact that the script has lots of individual strokes which for the most part aren’t connected to each other. I actually think that this is more a problem with the handwriting than the script itself: it looks much better when I write it a bit more neatly (e.g. aligning the various subparts of the glyphs, standardising the line and curve shapes).

Does the same feature (ɪʲm ɡuessinɡ lenɡth) character correspond to the circumflex in kâdas and sôrsa?

I suspect that that’s the little line you can see in those two syllables — horizontal in kâd, vertical in sôr.

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 4:16 pm What is that flourish after 'Piyon' in the sample?

It marks a proper name (earlier forms of the script used cartouches).

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 4:16 pm

Does the same feature (ɪʲm ɡuessinɡ lenɡth) character correspond to the circumflex in kâdas and sôrsa?

I suspect that that’s the little line you can see in those two syllables — horizontal in kâd, vertical in sôr.

Yep. You repeat one stroke of the vowel sign.
How â and ô are realized depends on dialect. They can be diphthongs, long, or different qualities.

OK, so as I briefly mentioned earlier, I was experimenting with this script, and I finally managed to get something I like:



The most important bit here is the top-left corner, where I’ve rewritten the original text (hopefully without mangling it too much). I’ve also shown three other syllables, namely tlon kes sin, to demonstrate some more aspects of this script which the original text didn’t. My main changes were to standardise the stroke shapes (now all lines are either horizontal, vertical or at roughly 45°, all arcs are 180° wide), as well as change the aspect ratio to a square. I’ve also changed the nasal subscript to a right angle, since I think that looks a bit nicer; other than that, I’ve tried to keep the shapes mostly the same (though I may have gotten some of them wrong by accident).

Another change I made is to try make the positions of each component a bit more consistent. I’ve outlined each component in the second line, and shown the syllable structures (with examples) in the third. One unusual feature: every vowel uses a different syllable structure, though this is manageable since it seems that there are only four vowels (plus length, of course). Like Hangeul, some components need to be stretched to fit into the structure: you can see this in e.g. sa (from sôr-sa), where the s component needs to be stretched quite drastically to fit in the space given to it.

I’ve also included two alternatives which differ a bit more from the original example. ‘Alternative 1’ uses an alternate syllable block for -o- and -e-, in which C₂ is nested to the left of the vowel rather than below it (and C₁ is correspondingly resized to a square as in -i-). ‘Alternative 2’ has a slightly different design for -e-, in which it works just like -o- rather than having its own structure with C₁ stretched and touching the vowel.

Of course, it goes without saying that you don’t need to use any of this; I present it purely in case it helps in some way.

(You know, it’s amazing how productive one can be when procrastinating… )

Wow, that's pretty cool!

Again, I may use it, at least as a variant.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 8:34 am Wow, that's pretty cool!

Thank you!

Again, I may use it, at least as a variant.

Again, that’s fine with me.

English has several different ways to encode the notion of ‘about’:

a discussion about who won
I am happy that I don’t live in the US.
a story of the soldiers and Satornino (somewhat archaic in English, though made famous by A Game of Thrones; this is a calque of a San Miguel Chimalapa Zoque example)

My question is: what is this sort of relationship called? And what other methods can I use to express it? (e.g. one of my conlangs denotes this relation using a locative verb ‘stand / be.at’, on the basis that such verbs have lots of different uses; I’m not too sure how realistic this is, though it seems like the sort of thing that ought to be attested somewhere.)

In terms of thematic relations, one of these is not like the others:

(1) I am happy that I don't live in the US => Stimulus.

And in English, at least, you can rephrase it as a subject.
==> That I don't live in the US pleases me.

I couldn't find a label for (2) and (3).

But we can play around with these a bit:

(2) We discussed about who won

That could be rephrased so that it's a direct object
==> we discussed who won.
That works in English, but not in French:
On discutait de qui a gagné. , **On discutait qui a gagné

(3)A story of the soldiers and Satornino
==> The author discusses the soldiers and Satornino.

In French all of these are handled with the same preposition de

Je suis content de ne pas vivre aux US. (but also: ça me plaît, de ne pas vivre aux US)
On discutait de qui a gagné.
Une histoire de soldats (? et de Satornino). (Not sure adding Satornino works.)

The constuction derives from a Latin ablative: de bello gallico, On, about the Gallic Wars.. de + ablative in other contexts is often translated 'out of'.

Nahuatl uses a locative.
ītechpa tlahtoah in octli

ī-techpa tla-htoa-h in octli

its-about indefinite-talk-PL the pulque

They're talking about pulque.

-techpa can be decomposed as -tech (next to, by, regarding, pertaining to...) + -pa (indicates movement)

I'm happy that... uses a particle in Nahuatl:
nipāqui inic nimitzitta

ni-pāqui inic ni-mitz-itta

I-be.happy part I-you-see

1s-be.happy PART 1s-2s.OBJ-see
I'm happy to see you.

inic is often translated 'as' or 'in order to', but really Nahuatl particles cover a wide range of meanings.

So really, using a locative looks like the most reasonable choice.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:29 am In terms of thematic relations, one of these is not like the others:

(1) I am happy that I don't live in the US => Stimulus.

And in English, at least, you can rephrase it as a subject.
==> That I don't live in the US pleases me.

I couldn't find a label for (2) and (3).

But we can play around with these a bit:

(2) We discussed about who won

That could be rephrased so that it's a direct object
==> we discussed who won.
That works in English, but not in French:
On discutait de qui a gagné. , **On discutait qui a gagné

(3)A story of the soldiers and Satornino
==> The author discusses the soldiers and Satornino.

This helps a lot — I hadn’t noticed that difference. But there must be some similarity somewhere, since you can rephrase the one in terms of the other: I am happy that I don’t live in the US ⇒ I am happy about not living in the US. (Also, as you say, French uses the same preposition for all of them.)

In French all of these are handled with the same preposition de

Je suis content de ne pas vivre aux US. (but also: ça me plaît, de ne pas vivre aux US)
On discutait de qui a gagné.
Une histoire de soldats (? et de Satornino). (Not sure adding Satornino works.)

The constuction derives from a Latin ablative: de bello gallico, On, about the Gallic Wars.. de + ablative in other contexts is often translated 'out of'.

Nahuatl uses a locative.
ītechpa tlahtoah in octli

ī-techpa tla-htoa-h in octli

its-about indefinite-talk-PL the pulque

They're talking about pulque.

-techpa can be decomposed as -tech (next to, by, regarding, pertaining to...) + -pa (indicates movement)

I'm happy that... uses a particle in Nahuatl:
nipāqui inic nimitzitta

ni-pāqui inic ni-mitz-itta

I-be.happy part I-you-see

1s-be.happy PART 1s-2s.OBJ-see
I'm happy to see you.

inic is often translated 'as' or 'in order to', but really Nahuatl particles cover a wide range of meanings.

So really, using a locative looks like the most reasonable choice.

Thanks, this is also really helpful! But I’d be curious to know if other methods are attested as well.

What exactly do applicatives do. They are featured in proto austronesian (Or at least proto oceanic) so i would like to feature them in my conlang but i'm not sure what exactly they do.

thethief3 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:47 pm What exactly do applicatives do. They are featured in proto austronesian (Or at least proto oceanic) so i would like to feature them in my conlang but i'm not sure what exactly they do.

Put simply: applicatives promote a peripheral argument (instruments, participants, locations, beneficiaries) to object position. For instance, here’s an example of an instrumental applicative from Indonesian:

Dia

3s

memukul

hit

anjing

dog

[dengam

with

tongkat]

stick

S/he hit the dog [with a stick]

Dia

3s

memukul-kan

hit-INSTR

tongkat

stick

[pada

at

anjing]

dog

lit. S/he hit-with a stick [at the dog]

And here’s an example of a comitative, from Yimas:

[ipa

1p

kantk]

with

pu-mampi-wa-k

3pS-AGAIN-go-IRR

Again they went [with us]

pu-kra-mampi-taŋ-wa-k

3pS-1pO-AGAIN-COMITATIVE-go-IRR

lit. Again they went-with us

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:17 am

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:46 am Oh, so you steal sentences from elsewhere?! Is that okay? I have some sentences that may have originated from Wikipedia, and I've been worrying it might be bad somehow.

Ah, no, I don't. The sentences are, in-universe, from Tarandim scripture. But writing scripture is difficult, you have to fast in a cave for days and eat grasshopers, so to get the proper otherworldly toned, I stole bits from actual holy books and reworked them to fit the culture.

Oh, I see. My conlang and conworld are way too underdeveloped to do anything like that. :/