Zompist Bboard Again

A language in which:

• Constituent order in indefinite noun phrases is rigidly modifier-noun (and degree words go before adjectives).
• The definite article is a second position clitic that must occur with exactly one phonological word to its left within the noun phrase. To satisfy this requirement, one constituent of the noun phrase is fronted, and the definite article is placed after the first phonological word in that constituent. (So the definite article might end up between a degree word and an adjective, for example.)
• The definite article has no segmental content. Instead, it replaces the tonal melody of the word to its left with all high tones.

Vocab:

• bòòmɛ́ butterfly
• dzɛ̀h very
• là deictic, proximal
• lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ pretty

Examples:

• bòòmɛ́ a butterfly
• bóómɛ́ the butterfly
• lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ bòòmɛ́ a pretty butterfly
• lɔ́ɔ́rɔ́ bòòmɛ́ the pretty butterfly
• bóómɛ́ lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ the pretty butterfly
• dzɛ̀h lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ bòòmɛ́ a very pretty butterfly
• dzɛ́h lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ bòòmɛ́ the very pretty butterfly
• bóómɛ́ dzɛ̀h lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ the very pretty butterfly
• ?là bòòmɛ́ a butterfly here
• lá bòòmɛ́ this butterfly (or should lá entail definiteness?)
• bóómɛ́ là the butterfly here

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:17 pm A language in which:

• Constituent order in indefinite noun phrases is rigidly modifier-noun (and degree words go before adjectives).
• The definite article is a second position clitic that must occur with exactly one phonological word to its left within the noun phrase. To satisfy this requirement, one constituent of the noun phrase is fronted, and the definite article is placed after the first phonological word in that constituent. (So the definite article might end up between a degree word and an adjective, for example.)
• The definite article has no segmental content. Instead, it replaces the tonal melody of the word to its left with all high tones.

Vocab:

• bòòmɛ́ butterfly
• dzɛ̀h very
• là deictic, proximal
• lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ pretty

Examples:

• bòòmɛ́ a butterfly
• bóómɛ́ the butterfly
• lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ bòòmɛ́ a pretty butterfly
• lɔ́ɔ́rɔ́ bòòmɛ́ the pretty butterfly
• bóómɛ́ lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ the pretty butterfly
• dzɛ̀h lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ bòòmɛ́ a very pretty butterfly
• dzɛ́h lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ bòòmɛ́ the very pretty butterfly
• bóómɛ́ dzɛ̀h lɔ́ɔ́rɔ̀ the very pretty butterfly
• ?là bòòmɛ́ a butterfly here
• lá bòòmɛ́ this butterfly (or should lá entail definiteness?)
• bóómɛ́ là the butterfly here

According to your example, isn't definite article realized as high tone in entire word to first word in phrase? However, neat idea. A tone morphology can get really weird.

Akangka wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:06 pm According to your example, isn't definite article realized as high tone in entire word to first word in phrase? However, neat idea. A tone morphology can get really weird.

It can actually change constituent order, too: the noun can precede a modifier only in a definite noun phrase. Though what I'd really like is to be able to break up constituents more thoroughly, getting something like "véry (the) butterfly pretty"; the closest I get is something more like "véry (the) pretty butterfly."

Agree about tone. I've got two language families on hold till I learn at least the very basics.

I personally wouldn't analyse this as a clitic at all, given there is no segmental morphology here. Rather, this would be edge inflection, optionally with some rearrangement of the constituent order.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:02 am edge inflection

Something new to learn about

Make a language with one of these:

1. linguolabial trill
2. Word-final click
3. voiced lateral affricate

You don't have to include them all.

Xwtek wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:27 am Make a language with one of these:

1. linguolabial trill
2. Word-final click
3. voiced lateral affricate

You don't have to include them all.

I’m thinking that world-final click could be pronounced only once.

I had an engelang about a language without any nouns at all. My idea is to have 8 person markers and make a noun a verb with copular meaning. For example

3SG-be.sick 3SG-be.mother 1SG.S-3SG.P-own
My mother is sick

Shuffling the order has the same meaning, but with different emphasis. Verbs that appear later in the sentence is the background for the former verb.

3PL-run-HAB 3PL-come-together-here-PST
(The people) that gathered here are runners
3PL-come-together-here-PST 3PL-run-HAB
The runners gathered here.

This is not simply a clause getting zero derivation into noun, because:

3SG.S-4PL.O-prepare-PST 3SG-be.C 4PL-run-HAB
C prepares the runner.
where C is a person name

On the other hand:

3SG.S-4PL.O-prepare-PST 3SG-be.C 3SG-run-HAB
C, a runner, prepares them

The problem is when complementizing verb, and handling quantifier.

A romlang with French-style deletion of word-final vowels, with subsequent unvoicing of any voiced consonant stranded at the end of the word, so that Latin calidus 'hot' ends up as... kalt.

Ser wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:24 pm A romlang with French-style deletion of word-final vowels, with subsequent unvoicing of any voiced consonant stranded at the end of the word, so that Latin calidus 'hot' ends up as... kalt.

S'prossem kalt Zakt djaft krattur Lauf-ont d'ecker! Aprobencker schtee Zakt, chipper multh Maketch d'Ontur!

Happens in one of my romlangs of Tarra, M@dan. The inspiration for that was rather Albanian than French, but the outcome is the same.

@Sal: quoi?

I think it's an ad hoc conlang I'm supposed to be able to understand, but I can't make heads or tails of it.

It wasn't a message, it was just playing with the idea you suggested,providing a very un-Romantic Romance language.

"The nearest hot star is four light-years from here! To reach this star would require many thousands of years!"

Ok, I had guessed prossem and aprobencker besides kalt. But now I'd like etymologies for the rest - lauf is from lumen, ont < annata, multh < mult-, and krattur < quattuor (with an intrusive /r/?), but the other words?
And there's clearly lenition and diphthongisation going on.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:00 am Ok, I had guessed prossem and aprobencker besides kalt. But now I'd like etymologies for the rest - lauf is from lumen, ont < annata, multh < mult-, and krattur < quattuor (with an intrusive /r/?), but the other words?
And there's clearly lenition and diphthongisation going on.

Well, I didn't give it TOO much thought, but...

lauf - lu:cem. We have a GVS, in which the mid-high vowels become high, and the high vowels diphthongise. And in (what becomes) word-final position, to avoid too much homophony after Ser's devoicing, the voiceless stops have fricated, with a subsequent coda /x/ > /f/ shift, c.f English (and maybe /p/ > /f/ > /h/ > 0?)

ont - annum. Final /nn/ > /nd/ > /nt/. Although thanks, I didn't know about 'annata'! I think that should yield "onth", although it might be "ont" as I've not been 100% consistent... Oh, and /a/ > /o/ is a result of nasalisation. And it's in the singular because.... the language uses singulars when there's unit of measurement present (cf English "six foot tall")

The intrusive /r/ is a reflection of the labialisation in a stressed onsent (labialisation > /w/ > /r/)

--------

S': ipsum > su, vowel prone to elision

Zakt: si:dus. /s/ > /z/; /i:/ > /aj/ > /ak~ag/ (vershaerfung, cf. romansh). /d/ > /t/

djaft: iacet. /i/ strengthens to /dZ/; /k/ > /x/ > /f/ before stop (c.f. Germanic). 'should' be -/T/ rather than /t/, but maybe that's got something to do with the stop-stop cluster, or despirantisation after the /x~f/?

d'ecker: de (ad) eccum hic. cf. Portuguese, daqui. The /r/ is again from a /w/ - eccu-i > eccri, subsequent vowel loss.

schtee: iste

chipper: ce:perit, future perfect of capere. Why is this not 'chipperth' or 'chippreth'? Clearly unexplained loss of the -/t/ in the future perfect (which serves here as an apodosic subjunctive).

Maketch: mi:lle. So, /ll/ > palatalised. Palatalised /l/ > /Z/ > /dZ/. C.f. Ligurian figgio and Cape Verde fidju from filius, and c.f. fricativisation of slender /r/ in Irish. This /dZ/ is then devoiced because it's final. Meanwhile, GVS and verschaerfung give us, as above, /i:/ > /ak/, hence yielding 'maktch'... but this cluster is unallowed, so there's an epentheti vowel inserted to produce 'maketch'.

d'Ontur: de anno:rum, Although the /nn/ is now no longer final, the /nt/ is spread throughout the entire declension by analogy. And yes, the genitive is overspecified here by both case and preposition.


It's not very robust, and I'd probably do some things differently if I were doing it seriously, but it's interesting, at least...

Thanks! I had wondered about the plural, but hadn't thought of the genitive - it seems your romlang is based off Classical Latin (or something close to it), not Proto-Romance.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:15 amont - annum. Final /nn/ > /nd/ > /nt/. Although thanks, I didn't know about 'annata'! I think that should yield "onth", although it might be "ont" as I've not been 100% consistent... Oh, and /a/ > /o/ is a result of nasalisation. And it's in the singular because.... the language uses singulars when there's unit of measurement present (cf English "six foot tall")

"Annata" is [anˈna:ta] (> French année, Catalan anyada) so I imagine that'd be "anoth" maybe? Or "aneth"? I don't know what happens to /a/ in this GVS.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:37 pmThanks! I had wondered about the plural, but hadn't thought of the genitive - it seems your romlang is based off Classical Latin (or something close to it), not Proto-Romance.

What leads you to say that in particular? With the exception of sīdus and the stem of cēpī*, I don't see anything in his etymologies that couldn't've been there in spoken Late Latin ca. 400.

For example, appropinquāre is attested in Occitan as aprobencar, the future perfect as in cēperit seems to have fed the development of the Iberian future subjunctive (this Romance form looks closest to the Latin imperfect subjunctive, but meaning-wise it's closer to the Latin future perfect), and the genitive plural -ōrum survives in French/Italian leur/loro, various Old French invariable adjectives (francōrum > francor 'French', *anteānōrum > ancienor 'antique'), the Romanian oblique plural article suffix -lor, and the oblique plural of certain Romanian determiners/pronouns (ecce istōrum > older Romanian acestor > modern acestora [aˈtʃestora] 'of these ones', ecce illōrum illōs alt(er-) -ī > celorlalți [ˈtʃelorlaltsʲ] 'of the other ones (masc.)').

* Although I should mention some languages retain an irregular perfect form from a reconstructible *capuī based on habuī (habēre): Portuguese coube, pre-Spanish *[ˈkawpe] > Old Spanish cope > modern cupe, Romanian încăpui [ɨŋkəˈpuj].

Ser wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:50 pm

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:15 amont - annum. Final /nn/ > /nd/ > /nt/. Although thanks, I didn't know about 'annata'! I think that should yield "onth", although it might be "ont" as I've not been 100% consistent... Oh, and /a/ > /o/ is a result of nasalisation. And it's in the singular because.... the language uses singulars when there's unit of measurement present (cf English "six foot tall")

"Annata" is [anˈna:ta] (> French année, Catalan anyada) so I imagine that'd be "anoth" maybe? Or "aneth"? I don't know what happens to /a/ in this GVS.

Nor do I! But I would assume "onnath", or "onnath".

What leads you to say that in particular? With the exception of sīdus and the stem of cēpī*, I don't see anything in his etymologies that couldn't've been there in spoken Late Latin ca. 400.

Yes, the general idea - off the top of my head - was something that diverged very early from our Romance, but that is still within, as it were, a viable trajectory, within touching distance of reality.

@Ser: As I stated, it's the genitive plural - for the Proto-Romane reconstructible from the Romance languages, it doesn't seem to have been a living noun case anymore, but just surviving in pronoun inflection and as a petrified case in some adjectives and perhaps family names. I certainly can't see something like de plus genitive developing from Proto-Romance.