Zompist Bboard Again

Akangka wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:44 pm

Max1461 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:34 pm

Vijay wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:19 pm Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, it sounds realistic enough to me. Sounds like split-S or something.

It's sort of split-split-S: split-S in the case marking, accusative in the verbal agreement.

That basically how Georgian works.

So says WALS, but I can't find a clear explanation of the verbal agreement marking in Georgian anywhere

Max1461 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:21 pm

Akangka wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:44 pm

Max1461 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:34 pm

It's sort of split-split-S: split-S in the case marking, accusative in the verbal agreement.

That basically how Georgian works.

So says WALS, but I can't find a clear explanation of the verbal agreement marking in Georgian anywhere

He's wrong, Georgian verbal agreement is also split-ergative, determined by the "screeve" (tense-aspect combination).

No expert, but as far as I can tell George Hewitt Georgian: A Learner's Grammar says that in the aorist screeves you get split-S case marking but consistently nom/acc agreement markers (especially on pages 103-140, 165).

Edit: oops, for split-S you also need p. 177.

Can inanimate marker turn into obviative marker? I planned Middle Ku to have proximal-obviative, like Asent'o, unlike Rkou that have animate-inanimate one.

Akangka wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:51 am Can inanimate marker turn into obviative marker? I planned Middle Ku to have proximal-obviative, like Asent'o, unlike Rkou that have animate-inanimate one.

The Proto-Algonquian animate obviative singular ending is identical to the inanimate plural marker; they're both *-ari. The jury is still out on what, if anything, this means.

In Porto-Yonutian, I presently have ergative alignment among third person nominals, and accusative alignment among first and second person pronouns. I know this is attested in quite a few languages. However, in clauses that have a 1st/2nd person agent a 3rd person patient, the 3rd person patient takes the accusative case (Whereas, were the agent a 3rd person, this patient would take the absolutive). Is anything like this attested?

Any languages with only one prenasalized stop? Bonus points if it's /ᵐb/.

Max1461 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:56 pm In Porto-Yonutian, I presently have ergative alignment among third person nominals, and accusative alignment among first and second person pronouns. I know this is attested in quite a few languages. However, in clauses that have a 1st/2nd person agent a 3rd person patient, the 3rd person patient takes the accusative case (Whereas, were the agent a 3rd person, this patient would take the absolutive). Is anything like this attested?

I think this is basically what happens in Sahaptin - the ergative case basically occurs to dis-ambiguate two 3rd person arguments. I'd recommend you read up on that though.

Risla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:21 am Any languages with only one prenasalized stop? Bonus points if it's /ᵐb/.

Mixtec has /ⁿd/ only.

Aside from English, are there languages that systematically broke long vowels into VC sequences and developed a dispreference for open stressed syllables?

-

Cypriot Greek apparently has postconsonantal /j/>/c/, with an additional shift to /k/ after r. Very odd and a conlang might put that to good use someday.

It might not happen after some consos, e.g. nasals, or maybe gk never had those sequences to begin wih.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:26 pm Cypriot Greek apparently has postconsonantal /j/>/c/

Doesn't seem too wild, right? It is a form of fortition; a palatal approximant turning into a palatal stop. A CjV-onset becoming CcV outright however is more odd, you'd expect a syllable break C.jV > C.cV.

It doesn't sound too odd at all, actually, especially considering that Cypriot has initial geminates.

Some Romance varieties of Italy also have Cj Gj > Ctʃ Gdʒ, including word-initially (thus /blaŋko/ > /bjaŋko/ > /bdʒaŋk/ in some Lombard varieties)

This makes me imagine a sound change like:

Cj Gj > cː ɟː or > tːʃ dːʒ

Risla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:21 am Any languages with only one prenasalized stop? Bonus points if it's /ᵐb/.

According to PHOIBLE:
Akasilimi /ŋmɡb/
Brao /ntʃ/
Puri /mp/
Soso /nd/
Kimwani /ŋɡ/

-

Risla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:21 am Any languages with only one prenasalized stop? Bonus points if it's /ᵐb/.

Rennelese /ŋɡ/

Nouns in my current proto-language inflect for class and number, quite a lot of classes as in Bantu languages. I also quite like the prefixal shape of them but I had an idea that the root word that gets inflected has sort of "slots" for lack of a better term, where placement of the class/number marker dictates whether it is singular or plural.

Ex.) bas /bɑs̱/ "person, thing, entity, stuff, whatchamacallit etc."
Singular
C1: Sentients : a- : abas "person, individual"
C2: Dang. Sent. : ge- : gebas "criminal, bad person, enemy"
C3: Beasts : ki- : kibas "beast"
C4: Animals : i- : ibas "animal"

Plural
C1: Sentients : <(h)a> : bās "people"
C2: Dang. Sent. : <ge> : bages "criminals, bad people, enemies"
C3: Beasts: <ki> : bakis "beasts"
C4: Animals: <(h)i> : bais "animals"

The (h) is only necessary to break up illegal syllable shapes and to avoid hiatus. Macrons indicate vowel length, and where two identical short vowels will combine to a long vowel.

Is this, marker placement determining number heard of? If it's not heard of, does it strike anyone as plausible or at bare minimum is it not trash?

-

mae wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:28 am As far as the way languages in real life tend to do things, that’s incredibly bizarre. However, you could get it through processes that *are* reasonable. If the original way of marking plurals was reduplication then you might get a situation like the one you describe as a result of some phonological reduction afterwards.

Yeah, I felt it was a bit unrealistic. Ok, well I think I can still have some bizarre plurals formed from reduplication. I'll tweak the pattern of plural marking and apply some morphophonological rules after reduplication. Thank you for the input!

Has relative pronoun attested to come from other sources? Particularly could relative pronoun come from logophoric pronoun (Asent'o's relative pronouns are originally this, and in Classical Asent'o, the relative pronouns still serve another usage as logophoric pronoun. It developed into relative pronoun from contact with islander merchants). Also, can logophoric pronoun and obviative marking occur together in a single language?