Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:39 am (One thing I’ve long pondered about triconsonality, by the way, is why it’s so rare. In our world, it seems to be just one of those unique quirks which pop up from time to time, like Austronesian alignment or distributed exponence or IE-style fusion, and up to now I saw no reason why it should be attested in any conworld, or even any language outside Semitic. But from what you’re saying, it sounds like it’s a feature which is really easy to evolve — vowel mutation, syncope and analogy rules aren’t exactly hard to come by. Perhaps it’s just rare to have all of (a–e) happen to the same language in the right order, even if each by itself is common.)

Unless I’m missing something, shouldn’t the syncope rule come before e→i here?

Also, how would this work for roots where the first proto-vowel isn’t one of /e o/? Though I’m assuming you could simply add more vowel shift rules.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:51 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:39 am (One thing I’ve long pondered about triconsonality, by the way, is why it’s so rare. In our world, it seems to be just one of those unique quirks which pop up from time to time, like Austronesian alignment or distributed exponence or IE-style fusion, and up to now I saw no reason why it should be attested in any conworld, or even any language outside Semitic. But from what you’re saying, it sounds like it’s a feature which is really easy to evolve — vowel mutation, syncope and analogy rules aren’t exactly hard to come by. Perhaps it’s just rare to have all of (a–e) happen to the same language in the right order, even if each by itself is common.)

That's a pretty good question.
I think AA had some non-concatenative morphoogy already, a tendancy towards CVC roots and CV prefix, which helps fit the triconsonantal pattern and a high tolerance of difficult clusters. The simple vowel system also helped.

For conlanging purposes: the roots don't have to be triconsonantal either. (I did something like that with the Tarandim family: the roots need two syllables, but that may mean one, two, or three consonants; the patterns will apply regardless.)

Adding more vowel shift rules would work! But both PIE (with ablaut) and proto-Semitic started out with a very reduced number of vowel qualities, and that reduces the number of ways the vowel can change.
(It's hard to generalize a pattern with English strong verbs -- even then, it happens fairly often -- but if English had only three vowel qualities, ablaut would probably be extremely productive.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:35 am
Not sure I remember this aspect of Tarandim (or anything of it, really); could you give a quick overview of the system please?

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:34 am besam-o 'I build' > be.sa'mo > besmo
besam 'He builds' > be'sam > bsam

voice-stem-mood-modifier-person-logophor-negation
0-    prux-0   -0       -na    -aʡs     -pa
0-    prux-a   -0       -na    -aʡs     -pa
0-    prux-a   -ʔa      -na    -aʡs     -pa
0-    prux-a   -ki      -na    -aʡs     -pa

0-    prux-0   -0       -ku    -aʡs     -pa
0-    prux-a   -0       -tsu   -aʡs     -pa
0-    prux-a   -ʔa      -tsu   -aʡs     -pa
0-    prux-a   -ki      -tsu   -aʡs     -pa

pVruḫ-na   "speak\REAL-1s"
paraḫ-na   "speak\IRR-1s"
parḫ-an-na "speak\IRR-DIR-1s"
parḫ-Vk-na "speak\IRR-INT-1s"

pVruḫ-ku   "speak\REAL-3fs.REAL"
paraḫ-tu   "speak\IRR-3fs.IRR"
parḫ-at-tu "speak\IRR-DIR-3fs.IRR"
parḫ-Vk-tu "speak\IRR-DIR-3fs.IRR"

pVruḫ-nässä   "speak\REAL-1s.REL"
paraḫ-nässä   "speak\IRR-1s.REL"
parḫ-an-nässä "speak\IRR-DIR-1s.REL"
parḫ-Vk-nässä "speak\IRR-INT-1s.REL"

pVruḫ-kässu   "speak\REAL-3fs.REAL.REL"
paraḫ-tässu   "speak\IRR-3fs.IRR.REL"
parḫ-at-tässu "speak\IRR-DIR-3fs.IRR.REL"
parḫ-Vk-tässu "speak\IRR-INT-3fs.IRR.REL"

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:03 pm Quite interesting results. Given my language's opposition to onset or coda consonant clusters and how the laryngeal stops cause gemination, the result would probably be:
paruḫnespa or paruḫnessep
paraḫnespa or paraḫnessep
paraḫḫanespa or paraḫḫanessep
Which aren't very pretty.

Znex wrote: ↑Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:44 am

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:03 pm Quite interesting results. Given my language's opposition to onset or coda consonant clusters and how the laryngeal stops cause gemination, the result would probably be:
paruḫnespa or paruḫnessep
paraḫnespa or paraḫnessep
paraḫḫanespa or paraḫḫanessep
Which aren't very pretty.

That gives me strong Akkadian/Old Aramaic vibes and looks really fun to me honestly, but do what suits you.

JT the Ninja wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:49 am Is it normal to want to re-work a verb system literally every time you look at it? I've seriously re-worked the Ahnakáh verb conjugation system at least 2 or 3 times, but it's still not satisfactory.

I almost want to scrap all the person endings entirely. The language really doesn't make use of affixes outside of verbs, so it would make sense to have it indicated by something else. Can't just use sentence position, though, because the word order changes for declarative vs. interrogative.

...wait...maybe I do what English does a lot and have nouns/verbs alternate stress patterns? The typical stress is on the first syllable...maybe have verbs put the stress on the final syllable? And this can lead to some vowel mutation, perhaps?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 10:15 pm Interesting challenge — I think I’ll have a go. Not sure how much time I’ll have to do this soon, so let me pre-register my choices:

• A2 Fixed stress location of a type that you seldom or never use in conlangs. When affixes are added to a word, the stress moves so that it will stay on the specificly numbered syllable.
• A4 Consonant mutation
• B6 Uses prefixes way more often than suffixes
• C3 A retroflex series, and not just on fricatives/affricates

Oh, and if we have to show a sketch in this thread, then could someone split this off as a separate ‘Conlang Challenge Thread’ or something?

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:18 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 10:15 pm Interesting challenge — I think I’ll have a go. Not sure how much time I’ll have to do this soon, so let me pre-register my choices:

• A2 Fixed stress location of a type that you seldom or never use in conlangs. When affixes are added to a word, the stress moves so that it will stay on the specificly numbered syllable.
• A4 Consonant mutation
• B6 Uses prefixes way more often than suffixes
• C3 A retroflex series, and not just on fricatives/affricates

Oh, and if we have to show a sketch in this thread, then could someone split this off as a separate ‘Conlang Challenge Thread’ or something?

Hmm, maybe create a thread just for presenting your conlang (sketch)? And send me a PM with the link! Btw, which fixed stress locations do you seldom if ever use?

laghá

CAUSE.STATE

ĝár

vouch

ör

but.S

laghá

CAUSE.STATE

genr

observe

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:38 am I eventually went for a system where stress is fixed at the morphophonemic level, but becomes unpredictable at the surface (though always on one of the first two syllables).

Raholeun wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:48 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:38 am I eventually went for a system where stress is fixed at the morphophonemic level, but becomes unpredictable at the surface (though always on one of the first two syllables).

I'd be interested to see how that works.

Raholeun wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:48 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:38 am I eventually went for a system where stress is fixed at the morphophonemic level, but becomes unpredictable at the surface (though always on one of the first two syllables).

I'd be interested to see how that works.

bradrn wrote: I divide phonological rules into segmental and post-prosodic rules. The segmental rules apply first, followed by foot assignment and then the post-prosodic rules.

Segmental rules:

1. Retroflexion: tr sr → ʈ ʂ
2. Consonant–Prenasal Deletion: C → ∅ / _ [+nasal][+stop]
3. Palatalisation: n ŋ t k s ʂ → ɲ ɲ c c ɕ ɕ / {i,j} _
4. Intervocalic Lenition: p t s k → β ɹ z ɰ / V_V

Following the segmental rules is syllabification and foot assignment. Feet are iambic and assigned left-to-right; primary stress is given to the leftmost foot, and degenerate feet are not tolerated. Heavy syllables [those having long vowel or coda] cannot occur in the weak part of the foot, and are assigned a separate foot if this would occur. Thus e.g. |əɰəwəzəekrəaːɰampəicəβuniːɨŋ| is footed as (əˈɰə)(wəˌzə)(eˌkrə)(aː)(ɰaˌmpə)(iˌcə)(βuˌniː)ɨŋ.

Post-prosodic rules can modify this prosodic structure, and are as follows:

1. Metathesis: If a foot has structure (CV.V(C)), the first syllable undergoes metathesis becoming (VC.V(C))
2. Unstressed Vowel Deletion: If a foot begins with an unstressed vowel, that vowel is deleted, with consequent resyllabification of any following consonant. If the previous foot ends in a vowel, that vowel may mutate: ə+V ɨ+V a+e a+i i+a a+o a+u u+a u+i i+u → V V e e e o o o ɨ ɨ
3. Stop Resolution: Illegal sequences of stops are resolved by changing the first stop to a nasal at the same PoA as the second stop
4. Stress Clash Resolution: If two stressed syllables are adjacent, the second is destressed (becoming a degenerate foot in the process)
5. Stressed Vowel Lengthening: /a e i o u/ → /aː eː iː oː uː/ in stressed syllables. /ə ɨ/ do not lengthen, but mutate to /a i/.