Crossing our fingers
https://verduria.org/
Sorry, I wasn't very clear here. By 'agglutinative version' I mean that you can replace all the fusional suffixes with agglutinative ones (marking gender, number, case, etc. separately) without radically changing anything else in the language.
That makes sense.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:36 amSorry, I wasn't very clear here. By 'agglutinative version' I mean that you can replace all the fusional suffixes with agglutinative ones (marking gender, number, case, etc. separately) without radically changing anything else in the language.
I don't know about the rest, except that case+number exponence is itself restricted to indo-european languages (and semitic?) https://wals.info/feature/21A#2/25.5/152.1. (also, by case marking, I don't exclude adpositions, as long as it distinguishes actor and undergoer).akam chinjir wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:29 amThat's an obvious motivation for case in verb-peripheral languages, sure---but does it play out the same way in SOV and verb-initial languages? In particular, are case-markers as likely to be aggluted affixes in both sorts of languages?Xwtek wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:53 am I read (in WALS article?) the reason for that is because language with SVO order can parse the sentence easier. In language with neither head marking or dependent marking, it's pretty difficult to parse whether "man stone break" means "A man breaks stone" or "A man stone breaks" (This can be mitigated with obligatory article, or case marking, or to the lesser extent, head marking (person stone 3SG-3SG-break can only ever mean "A man breaks stone"))
When TAM markers come after the verb, there's a very strong tendency for them to be affixes (aggluted or fused or whatever). You don't get nearly as strong a tendency when they occur before the verb, from what I understand. It's hard to see what that could have to do with distinguishing the verb's arguments. (There's an idea that the general preference for suffixes over prefixes has something to do with preserving the salience of word-beginnings, that could be part of the story.)
And Lugbara, according to the notes - I think they don't show that on the map because Lugbara's one of only two case+TAM languages, and they didn't want to make a new case+TAM+number category for just one language... (either that or the notes are wrong).KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:02 amYou don't seem to have read your own reference properly. WALS lists Finnish, Nenets, Chukchi, West Greenlandic, and Yaqui as all having case+number exponence.
From what I've heard, it's typical for beginning conlangers to make agglutinative languages. I think it's because it's easy to think of what grammatical categories you want and to make up affixes for those. You don't have to complicate things the way Hungarian does just because your doing agglutination. On the other hand, I think it would be interesting to see what you can come up with if you go analytic.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:36 pmWhat do you think: is it a good idea to go for an agglutinative language as a beginner, or should I stick with my original plan of an analytic language?I'm equally open to both possibilities, but I'm not sure I can do a complex agglutinating grammar properly. Hungarian can help, yes, but it gets super complicated after a while. Maybe a simpler agglutinating system like in german (without gender and inflection) would be the golden middle way. If the setting is the only obstacle, I wouldn't mind changing it at all.
If that was your original idea, why not go for an analytic language? They're particularly interesting, and you can try deriving an agglutinating system from it later on!Këkkytir wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:36 pm So, my first question to you is:
What do you think: is it a good idea to go for an agglutinative language as a beginner, or should I stick with my original plan of an analytic language?I'm equally open to both possibilities, but I'm not sure I can do a complex agglutinating grammar properly. Hungarian can help, yes, but it gets super complicated after a while. Maybe a simpler agglutinating system like in german (without gender and inflection) would be the golden middle way. If the setting is the only obstacle, I wouldn't mind changing it at all.
Next time, I'm going to write about the phonological system of the language (which doesn't have a name yet because I'd like to give it a native name later).What do you think about Biblaridion's process? Is it good? Would you change the order of
the steps (like in LCK)? Would you add something else to the list? Is phonological and grammatical evolution a must-have, or is it an optional step that can be added later when I have more experience with it?
Qwynegold wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:26 amFrom what I've heard, it's typical for beginning conlangers to make agglutinative languages. I think it's because it's easy to think of what grammatical categories you want and to make up affixes for those. You don't have to complicate things the way Hungarian does just because your doing agglutination. On the other hand, I think it would be interesting to see what you can come up with if you go analytic.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:36 pmWhat do you think: is it a good idea to go for an agglutinative language as a beginner, or should I stick with my original plan of an analytic language?I'm equally open to both possibilities, but I'm not sure I can do a complex agglutinating grammar properly. Hungarian can help, yes, but it gets super complicated after a while. Maybe a simpler agglutinating system like in german (without gender and inflection) would be the golden middle way. If the setting is the only obstacle, I wouldn't mind changing it at all.
Thank you for the support! The others convinced me that an agglutinative language is better suited for me. But I won't throw away my original ideas and maybe create an analytic proto-language later on. That'd be fun to do.Ars Lande wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:36 amIf that was your original idea, why not go for an analytic language? They're particularly interesting, and you can try deriving an agglutinating system from it later on!Këkkytir wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:36 pm So, my first question to you is:
What do you think: is it a good idea to go for an agglutinative language as a beginner, or should I stick with my original plan of an analytic language?I'm equally open to both possibilities, but I'm not sure I can do a complex agglutinating grammar properly. Hungarian can help, yes, but it gets super complicated after a while. Maybe a simpler agglutinating system like in german (without gender and inflection) would be the golden middle way. If the setting is the only obstacle, I wouldn't mind changing it at all.
That sounds like a great plan! And I for one don’t mind if you respond slowly — from what I know of it, conlanging isn’t supposed to go at a breakneck pace.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:17 am According to the the feedback you guys have provided, and seeing how excited you were about the
paleosiberian concept (although some of you would be equally interested in an analytic language), I've decided on an agglutinative language inspired by today's paleosiberian languages . This way, I can also take advantage of my understanding of hungarian.
Plus, I can have fun learning about paleosiberian languages. This, however, will probably cause delays in the project, so please forgive me if I respond slowly.
I don’t think you have to go in any particular order, although I would highly recommend doing the phonology first. Then maybe make a couple of words, just so you can write some minimalist sample sentences. After this, I often end up gradually filling out bits and pieces of the morphology and syntax sections in no particular order other than doing the simplest bits first and working up to the more complex bits.As a start, I'd like to follow the steps described in this series of videos by Biblaridion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHK1gO2 ... 2O3YO0b2nN
In short, the steps are: phonology (+syllable structure), syntax, grammar and lexicon (then phonological evolution, grammatical evolution and writing systems, but I think these are optional). On the other hand, the LCK suggests phonology, lexicon (+syllable structure), grammar (+extending the lexicon) and syntax (semantics & pragmatics) instead.
My question:Next time, I'm going to write about the phonological system of the language (which doesn't have a name yet because I'd like to give it a native name later).What do you think about Biblaridion's process? Is it good? Would you change the order of
the steps (like in LCK)? Would you add something else to the list? Is phonological and grammatical evolution a must-have, or is it an optional step that can be added later when I have more experience with it?
You don't have to follow any particular order, though naturally lexicon will have to be started some time after the phonology is finished. The lexicon is something that you will work on forever though. My advice is to work on it little by little while you do other things as well. If you don't have the words you need when you're working with the grammar, you can always leave placeholders in their stead, and fill those in later.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:17 amMy question:What do you think about Biblaridion's process? Is it good? Would you change the order of
the steps (like in LCK)? Would you add something else to the list? Is phonological and grammatical evolution a must-have, or is it an optional step that can be added later when I have more experience with it?
I don't know if there's any specific order to follow, except that you should decide on a phoneme inventory and constraints first, and have some idea of typology as well...Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:17 am
My question:What do you think about Biblaridion's process? Is it good? Would you change the order of
the steps (like in LCK)? Would you add something else to the list? Is phonological and grammatical evolution a must-have, or is it an optional step that can be added later when I have more experience with it?
Thanks for asking!
) I also noticed that I can't pronounce many of the sounds, so maybe it's best to avoid those ones for now (is it?). Things that I want in some form: vowel-harmony, a series of palatalized consonants, geminated voiceless stops, very few fricatives/affricatives, CV(C) syllables, stress on first syllable. I'll do a phonetic chart proposal on the weekend.Which sounds exactly can’t you pronounce? I may be able to help. Also, in case you haven’t found this yet, Wikipedia has a separate page for each phoneme in the IPA; each page includes a breakdown of the pronunciation, plus an audio sample. Other sites with audio include http://www.ipachart.com/ and https://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/ ... IPAlab.htm. The UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive is quite useful as well: it contains real audio samples from many natural languages. I’ve found all these resources to be incredibly useful when trying to learn how to say new sounds.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:15 pmThanks for asking!
I didn't have much freetime last week and I'm still working on the phonology part. I've been looking at phonetic charts of many different siberian languages (maybe I overdid it a little bit
That sounds great! I can easily see this language as fitting in with the various other Siberian languages.Things that I want in some form: vowel-harmony, a series of palatalized consonants, geminated voiceless stops, very few fricatives/affricatives, CV(C) syllables, stress on first syllable. I'll do a phonetic chart proposal on the weekend.
Well, there's a couple of them, but I think the the sites you linked could help me. Especially the UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive. I use Wikipedia's IPA chart a lot but sometimes I don't feel confident enough about my pronunciation. Even if I follow the instructions mechanically, it feels as if I'm missing something.bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:25 pmWhich sounds exactly can’t you pronounce? I may be able to help. Also, in case you haven’t found this yet, Wikipedia has a separate page for each phoneme in the IPA; each page includes a breakdown of the pronunciation, plus an audio sample. Other sites with audio include http://www.ipachart.com/ and https://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/ ... IPAlab.htm. The UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive is quite useful as well: it contains real audio samples from many natural languages. I’ve found all these resources to be incredibly useful when trying to learn how to say new sounds.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:15 pmThanks for asking!
I didn't have much freetime last week and I'm still working on the phonology part. I've been looking at phonetic charts of many different siberian languages (maybe I overdid it a little bit
Velars and uvulars don’t sound all that different anyway — only /q/ and /χ/ are at all common, and most languages don’t even have a contrast between /x/ and /χ/. To make a uvular, just put your tongue as far back in your mouth as you can without it becoming pharyngeal.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:43 pm The two things I struggled the most with recently:
-velar vs. uvular plosives: [k]-[q], [g]-[ɢ], [x]-[X] and [ɣ]-[ʁ]. I can pronounce the velars more back in my throat but they doesn't sound very different. Also, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart if I hear them in speech. Maybe I'm just not used to this distinction yet, idk.
Start with a fully back, highly rounded /u/, then without moving your tongue, slowly change your lips from being rounded to being spread out. It’s a bit tricky at first, but if you practise then you should be able to pronounce it easily.-the vowel [ɯ]: I want to include this badly in my conlang but every time I try to pronounce it, it sounds either like [y] or [ø]. But I won't give up yet and countinue practising
bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:42 amI don’t think you have to go in any particular order, although I would highly recommend doing the phonology first. Then maybe make a couple of words, just so you can write some minimalist sample sentences. After this, I often end up gradually filling out bits and pieces of the morphology and syntax sections in no particular order other than doing the simplest bits first and working up to the more complex bits.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:17 am As a start, I'd like to follow the steps described in this series of videos by Biblaridion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHK1gO2 ... 2O3YO0b2nN
In short, the steps are: phonology (+syllable structure), syntax, grammar and lexicon (then phonological evolution, grammatical evolution and writing systems, but I think these are optional). On the other hand, the LCK suggests phonology, lexicon (+syllable structure), grammar (+extending the lexicon) and syntax (semantics & pragmatics) instead.
My question:Next time, I'm going to write about the phonological system of the language (which doesn't have a name yet because I'd like to give it a native name later).What do you think about Biblaridion's process? Is it good? Would you change the order of
the steps (like in LCK)? Would you add something else to the list? Is phonological and grammatical evolution a must-have, or is it an optional step that can be added later when I have more experience with it?
You're right. I can see the advantages of such an iterative approach, so I'll do that. In this way, I can extend the language bit by bit and modify it whenever I want.Qwynegold wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:35 pmYou don't have to follow any particular order, though naturally lexicon will have to be started some time after the phonology is finished. The lexicon is something that you will work on forever though. My advice is to work on it little by little while you do other things as well. If you don't have the words you need when you're working with the grammar, you can always leave placeholders in their stead, and fill those in later.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:17 am
My question:What do you think about Biblaridion's process? Is it good? Would you change the order of
the steps (like in LCK)? Would you add something else to the list? Is phonological and grammatical evolution a must-have, or is it an optional step that can be added later when I have more experience with it?
Thank you for sharing your method, I like it! I think it'd work well with the iterative approach mentioned above. I can start with a rough sketch of a proto-language and iteratively modify it until I like the result. It can also explain the irregularities in the language.Ars Lande wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:44 amI don't know if there's any specific order to follow, except that you should decide on a phoneme inventory and constraints first, and have some idea of typology as well...Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:17 am
My question:What do you think about Biblaridion's process? Is it good? Would you change the order of
the steps (like in LCK)? Would you add something else to the list? Is phonological and grammatical evolution a must-have, or is it an optional step that can be added later when I have more experience with it?
Maybe I can tell you how I work instead?
I start with a very basic sketch: phonemic inventory, a few basics on syntax (what kind of inflections are there? what's the basic word order?). I don't spend much time on this, I'm going to revise it anyway.
Then I figure out the proto language. You don't need to make up a full-fledged language at this point -- indeed it would be extremely counter-productive! A rough sketch fitting on a page or two is sufficient. I decide on a phoneme inventory, some constraints, some very basic grammar stuff (a few ideas of syntax, some inflections). It's best to keep things as simple as possible.
Also, I figure out a lexicon for the proto-language. One possible approach is to start with the swadesh list and use a vocabulary generator.
Then I figure out sound changes from the proto-language to the final language and run then through the inflections and word list until I get something I like.
Once you have that, you can start work on your language, beginning on pretty much anything you like.
Why I do it that way?
I should point out that it's most easier to work forwards than backwards (Once I found an old grammar sketch I had made up fifteen years earlier, with no info on the proto-language... Figuring out why the language worked as it did was a nightmare). And it's not that long. You can spend a few hours on the proto-language and get more than enough for your needs. It's actually realistic (how much do we really now for sure about PIE or proto-Semitic anyway?)
- I get more naturalistic results that way. Interesting irregularities, constraints I wouldn't have thought of, and so on.
- If I ever want to create a sister language, I can!
- If I need to create a new word, I can either make up a new root, or reuse an existing root with a compound, or another derivation
and you can flesh it out later when you work on a sister language (if you've kept things vague on the proto-language, if you find out you need it to have a particular feature, or more roots, you can add these retroactively).
And of coure, that's just the ways I do things. It's not mandatory or anything, just something I find convenient.
Actually, I've been working on an extended swadesh list for some time (mostly based on the LCK's suggestions).Wow this already helped a lot, thanks!bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:22 pmVelars and uvulars don’t sound all that different anyway — only /q/ and /χ/ are at all common, and most languages don’t even have a contrast between /x/ and /χ/. To make a uvular, just put your tongue as far back in your mouth as you can without it becoming pharyngeal.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:43 pm The two things I struggled the most with recently:
-velar vs. uvular plosives: [k]-[q], [g]-[ɢ], [x]-[X] and [ɣ]-[ʁ]. I can pronounce the velars more back in my throat but they doesn't sound very different. Also, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart if I hear them in speech. Maybe I'm just not used to this distinction yet, idk.
You’re welcome!Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:40 pmWow this already helped a lot, thanks!bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:22 pmVelars and uvulars don’t sound all that different anyway — only /q/ and /χ/ are at all common, and most languages don’t even have a contrast between /x/ and /χ/. To make a uvular, just put your tongue as far back in your mouth as you can without it becoming pharyngeal.Këkkytir wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:43 pm The two things I struggled the most with recently:
-velar vs. uvular plosives: [k]-[q], [g]-[ɢ], [x]-[X] and [ɣ]-[ʁ]. I can pronounce the velars more back in my throat but they doesn't sound very different. Also, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart if I hear them in speech. Maybe I'm just not used to this distinction yet, idk.