Zompist Bboard Again

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:41 pm The phonology isn't terribly interesting, but that's ok. The main divergences from the IPA are /b d g/ which are [β ð ɣ], except when immediately before a voiceless stop, in which case they devoice to [ɸ θ x]. The [ɸ] produced by this merges with original /f/ [ɸ].

I do find myself rather unsure of how to pronounce it, notably I find myself assuming ä to be [ɛ], though I suppose it could be [æ]; also, is j intended to be [j], [ʒ], [d͡ʒ], [ʑ], [ɟ͡ʑ], [ʐ], [ɖ͡ʐ], or something else? it seems to pattern with both /s/ and /i/, depending on the context, so I'm guessing it must descend from multiple sources, and possibly be some sort of consonant in variantion between [j~(d)ʒ~(ɟ)ʑ] (unless, of course, the third-person inanimate accusative and directional(?) are suppletive, or the j- is a typographical error).

Have a complete sentence: se-peŋŋ se-kanjo se-mijom-käll-sä lowo ro-soo-nobuad "The fox ate the fish intended for the child"

And the gloss:

se-

ᴅᴇꜰ=

peŋŋ

fox{ᴀʙs}

se-

ᴅᴇꜰ=

kanjo

ʀᴇʟ.ᴀɴ-ᴀᴄᴄ

se-

ᴅᴇꜰ=

mijom

child-ᴅɪʀ

-käll

=ɢᴇɴ

-sä

=3

lowo

fish-ᴀᴄᴄ

ro-

ᴘꜰᴠ=

soo-

3>3=

nobuad

eat-ᴘsᴛ

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:20 pmI do find myself rather unsure of how to pronounce it

Alright, I can give a more complete exposition (though specific allophone distributions and phonetic details are subject to change). p t k are [pʰ tʰ kʰ] word-initially and after voiceless consonants, [p t k] before voiceless consonants, and [b̥ d̥ g̊] (weakly-voiced) in most other contexts. b d g are [ɸ θ x] before a voiceless consonant and [β ð ɣ] otherwise. f s h l j w m n ŋ are always [ɸ s h l j w m n ŋ]. I will not commit to a specific rhotic for r other than it's a coronal sonorant. ä a e o i u are [æ ɑ e o i u] in stressed syllables (the first syllable of non-clitics). In unstressed syllables only e o i u are written, and stand for [ə o ɨ u], though the back vowels are only weakly rounded. Doubly-written vowels are just the long counterparts of the short vowels, except that ee oo are [ɛː ɔː]. iä ie ua uo are [i̯æˑ i̯eˑ u̯ɑˑ u̯oˑ].

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:20 pmunless, of course, the third-person inanimate accusative and directional(?) are suppletive, or the j- is a typographical error

Neither of these. /j/ is deleted word-initially before a high vowel or one of the front diphthongs. ie- is thus *jie-.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:56 pm ä a e o i u are [æ e i ɑ o u] in stressed syllables (the first syllable of non-clitics).

Are you sure this shouldn’t be [æ ɑ e o i u]?

You're absolutely right. I changed the order of the graphemes and my brain ignored that when I wrote the transcription.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:56 pm Have a complete sentence: se-peŋŋ se-kanjo se-mijom-käll-sä lowo ro-soo-nobuad "The fox ate the fish intended for the child"

And the gloss:

se-

ᴅᴇꜰ=

peŋŋ

fox{ᴀʙs}

se-

ᴅᴇꜰ=

kanjo

ʀᴇʟ.ᴀɴ-ᴀᴄᴄ

se-

ᴅᴇꜰ=

mijom

child-ᴅɪʀ

-käll

=ɢᴇɴ

-sä

=3

lowo

fish-ᴀᴄᴄ

ro-

ᴘꜰᴠ=

soo-

3>3=

nobuad

eat-ᴘsᴛ

Very nice, what's -sä doing in se-mijom-käll-sä? It looks like the clause is relativised from "The fish (is?) intended for the child" - what would that look like by itself? I'm noticing there isn't a verb in the relative clause.

sä is one of the agreement clitics for predicates, it's there to mark the adverb as functioning predicatively. "The fish is intended for the child" looks like se-luow se-mijom-käll-sä with "fish" moved into the nominative.

The order of the relative clause is melting my brain a little, but in a good way.
I like this language, and I'm watching closely, even if I don't have much to contribute yet.

As far as I know, preposed relative clauses are actually pretty normal in head-final languages like this. Nonetheless, I'll probably do a Syntax and have preposed relative clauses only where they are "short". When they're "long" they'd be placed after, and have their head clefted out of the main clause.

Another clitic, tis, which marks motion/direction away with the lative and directive cases, and position off in the locative.

wiekäälii

wall-ʟᴏᴄ

-tis

=AB

"off the wall"

wiekääles

wall-ʟᴀᴛ

-tis

=AB

"(moving) away from the wall"

wiegäälom

wall-ᴅɪʀ

-tis

=AB

"(in the direction) away from the wall"

Do you have complicated, messy naturalistic etymologies for any of this? I love it when an inflection or a lemma has a story to tell if we only know where to look.

I really like this language, even though I don't have much to contribute myself.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:01 pm Do you have complicated, messy naturalistic etymologies for any of this? I love it when an inflection or a lemma has a story to tell if we only know where to look.

Etymologies yes, complicated and messy, not really. I haven't gone back very far at all, just deep enough to get the mutations I wanted.

Oh, well. Maybe post a few (and also give the language a name)?

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:11 am I have half a mind to at some point derive some sisterlangs to this one and call it a reconstruction challenge.

I hope this explains why I'll keep the etymologies to myself. As for a name, I'm working on it! I'm trying to think of a fitting etymology for it.

Are the loc/lat/dir cases inherently adverbial, or only adverbs when the clitics are affixed? Can the cases be used to modify nouns without being relativised?

Inherently adverbial, and they can't modify nouns directly. I'd already decided that when nouns are modified, all their clitics migrate to the first modifier,
se-ŋälbom-sää "into the room", se-sarfom-sää ŋälbom "into the red room". Using a word that's already hosting clitics as a modifier would conflict with this bit of syntax, so I don't want to allow it.

I was reading about Samic consonant gradation today, and it seemed quite neat - basically most medial consonants in Proto-Samic had two forms, short and geminate, but based on whether the next syllable was originally open or closed each of these had a weak and a strong form, resulting in four lengths. Note that these collapsed into three lengths in most Samic varieties aside from some dialects of Ume Sami. Also note that in present-day Sami varieties these original conditioning environments have been lost in many cases due to loss of final consonants.

Oh, that's interesting! I didn't actually know any specifics about what triggered gradation in any Uralic language when I started this, so what I ended up doing probably isn't like any of them.

I've added a series of possessive pronoun clitics: kääj- "my, our", nääj- "your", sääj- "his/hers, theirs", iej- "its". They're all indifferent to number, and make their possessand definite (so they replace the definite clitic se-).

kääj-sarfo lowo nobuad-soo

kääj-

1.POSS=

sarfo

red-ACC

lowo

fish-ACC

nobuad

eat-PST

-soo

=3>3

"He ate my red fish"