Page 11 of 30
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:39 pm
by Kuchigakatai
Zaarin wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:56 pmI don't think Akkadians text or chat much these days (and they also lacked a glottal stop, as far as we know).
Akkadian scholars could have an ASCII-friendly convention to replace the traditional right half-ring of Semiticists.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:59 am
by Xwtek
M Mira wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:46 pm
Akangka wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:55 pm
Vijay wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:36 pm
It's pronounced as rising in that environment. I'm not sure I agree it's
high rising (although there probably are sources that say it is).
Whoops sorry, my Mandarin teacher used to say it's pronounced as the second tone. It's actually another simplification, like b and p is pronounced as each other. (In Javanese p has no aspiration, but b does)
Actually, I believe that a substantial number of Mandarin speakers pronounce the third tone with sandhi and the second tone identically. Some 2nd tone characters that are often followed by a 3rd tone character, like 潛/潜 (qián), are frequently mis-interpreted as a 3rd tone character with sandhi because they are pronounced identically by some speakers. A quick Google of "qián third tone" in Chinese (潛 三聲) shows that the confusion isn't limited to any specific region.
Ok now I'm confused. According to Ninchanese, it's low rising.
https://ninchanese.com/blog/2016/10/19/ ... i-chinese/
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:49 am
by Vijay
I think M Mira's saying that it's low rising for most speakers but high rising for some others.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:05 pm
by mèþru
Ser wrote:Is this use of <7> common in Hebrew or Akkadian? In Arabic it's <2> that is generally used for the glottal stop, <7> generally standing for /ħ/ instead.
Hebrew usually just omits the glottal stop in transliterations. The glottal stop is really only useful when talking about morphophonological history; most Modern Hebrew speakers can't tell the difference between a glottal stop and a hiatus.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:50 pm
by Richard W
Zaarin wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:56 pm
I don't think Akkadians text or chat much these days (and they also lacked a glottal stop, as far as we know).
I thought the use of VC-V instead of ...-CV was how contrastive glottal stops were written.
Isn't most Akkadian chat written by non-Mesopotamians?
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:03 pm
by Zaarin
Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:50 pm
Zaarin wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:56 pm
I don't think Akkadians text or chat much these days (and they also lacked a glottal stop, as far as we know).
I thought the use of VC-V instead of ...-CV was how contrastive glottal stops were written.
I think you're right actually.
Isn't most Akkadian chat written by non-Mesopotamians?
Well, most of it seems to be written by Germans and Frenchmen these days.
But if we're talking about original cuneiform texts, as far as I'm aware the majority come from Assyria and Babylonia, with outliers in Persia and the broader Middle East. Perhaps you're thinking of Sumerian texts, many of which come from later Babylonian and Assyrian scribal archives?
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:27 pm
by Richard W
Zaarin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:03 pm
Isn't most Akkadian chat written by non-Mesopotamians?
Well, most of it seems to be written by Germans and Frenchmen these days.
But if we're talking about original cuneiform texts, as far as I'm aware the majority come from Assyria and Babylonia, with outliers in Persia and the broader Middle East. Perhaps you're thinking of Sumerian texts, many of which come from later Babylonian and Assyrian scribal archives?
Modern Europeans are the sort of non-Mesopotamian I had in mind.
One has to be careful though - it seems that most users of Ogham are irish citizens - but the language it is usually used for is English.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:55 pm
by Xwtek
Nahuatl, you should choose a proper terminology, why is the term "Absolutive" and "Possessed" when you can use the term "Non-construct" and "Construct"?
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:20 pm
by Vijay
How is that "proper terminology"? Absolutive vs. possessed seems more consistent with how languages around Nahuatl are described whereas "construct" seems to be limited to Afroasiatic and doesn't mean the same thing as possessed in Nahuatl.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:47 am
by Xwtek
Vijay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:20 pm
How is that "proper terminology"? Absolutive vs. possessed seems more consistent with how languages around Nahuatl are described whereas "construct" seems to be limited to Afroasiatic and doesn't mean the same thing as possessed in Nahuatl.
Usually, absolutive means absolutive case (i.e. subject of intransitive verb or object of transitive verb). So, it would be causing confusion: "Why is transitive subject that doesn't have possessor is marked with absolutive?"
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:56 pm
by Nortaneous
Wikipedia's page for Cahuilla uses "absolutive" and "construct" (but that's as opposed to AA *absolute*/construct)
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:18 am
by akam chinjir
"In Banawá, consonant-initial words have a trochaic pattern, and vowel-initial words have an iambic pattern."
(B. Hyde,
Extrametricality and Non‐Finality; or via [ahem]sci-hub[/ahem]).
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:30 pm
by M Mira
Akangka wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:59 am
M Mira wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:46 pm
Akangka wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:55 pm
Whoops sorry, my Mandarin teacher used to say it's pronounced as the second tone. It's actually another simplification, like b and p is pronounced as each other. (In Javanese p has no aspiration, but b does)
Actually, I believe that a substantial number of Mandarin speakers pronounce the third tone with sandhi and the second tone identically. Some 2nd tone characters that are often followed by a 3rd tone character, like 潛/潜 (qián), are frequently mis-interpreted as a 3rd tone character with sandhi because they are pronounced identically by some speakers. A quick Google of "qián third tone" in Chinese (潛 三聲) shows that the confusion isn't limited to any specific region.
Ok now I'm confused. According to Ninchanese, it's low rising.
https://ninchanese.com/blog/2016/10/19/ ... i-chinese/
Vijay wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:49 am
I think M Mira's saying that it's low rising for most speakers but high rising for some others.
Actually, I can hardly tell the difference in register if the contour isn't flat. I'm a bit surprised too, since it can't be influence from substrates, as Hokkien, Hakka, and even Cantonese have register contrasts for non-flat contours.
I probably pronounce both the 2nd tone and the sandhi'd 3rd tone as 24.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:13 am
by Xwtek
Not bad at all, but this is rather ingenious and funny. In Bislama, the third person pronouns are:
SG: em
DU: tugeta
TRI: trigeta
PL: olgeta
Even if this is actually unrealistic, it's worth it.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:28 pm
by Richard W
Akangka wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:13 am
Not bad at all, but this is rather ingenious and funny. In Bislama, the third person pronouns are:
SG: em
DU: tugeta
TRI: trigeta
PL: olgeta
Even if this is actually unrealistic, it's worth it.
Possibly generalised from the second person pronouns, which are closer to normal English usage. Southern American English
y'all is an example for the plural, and I think Lithuanian
judu shows the inclusion of a cardinal in a dual number. English
you two isn't so far removed, but I wouldn't claim it had been grammaticalised. The number system is a substrate feature.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:20 am
by Xwtek
Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:28 pm
Akangka wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:13 am
Not bad at all, but this is rather ingenious and funny. In Bislama, the third person pronouns are:
SG: em
DU: tugeta
TRI: trigeta
PL: olgeta
Even if this is actually unrealistic, it's worth it.
Possibly generalised from the second person pronouns, which are closer to normal English usage. Southern American English
y'all is an example for the plural, and I think Lithuanian
judu shows the inclusion of a cardinal in a dual number. English
you two isn't so far removed, but I wouldn't claim it had been grammaticalised. The number system is a substrate feature.
Well, I just mean that the conlanger of this language found a way to insert a joke. The fact that this is actually realistic makes this joke actually funnier.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:21 am
by bradrn
Akangka wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:20 am
Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:28 pm
Akangka wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:13 am
Not bad at all, but this is rather ingenious and funny. In Bislama, the third person pronouns are:
SG: em
DU: tugeta
TRI: trigeta
PL: olgeta
Even if this is actually unrealistic, it's worth it.
Possibly generalised from the second person pronouns, which are closer to normal English usage. Southern American English
y'all is an example for the plural, and I think Lithuanian
judu shows the inclusion of a cardinal in a dual number. English
you two isn't so far removed, but I wouldn't claim it had been grammaticalised. The number system is a substrate feature.
Well, I just mean that the conlanger of this language found a way to insert a joke. The fact that this is actually realistic makes this joke actually funnier.
Maybe I’m being ridiculous here, but I don’t see the joke…
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:10 am
by Xwtek
bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:21 am
Akangka wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:20 am
Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:28 pm
Possibly generalised from the second person pronouns, which are closer to normal English usage. Southern American English
y'all is an example for the plural, and I think Lithuanian
judu shows the inclusion of a cardinal in a dual number. English
you two isn't so far removed, but I wouldn't claim it had been grammaticalised. The number system is a substrate feature.
Well, I just mean that the conlanger of this language found a way to insert a joke. The fact that this is actually realistic makes this joke actually funnier.
Maybe I’m being ridiculous here, but I don’t see the joke…
https://pastebin.com/TLRt3UXF
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:08 pm
by bradrn
Akangka wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:10 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:21 am
Akangka wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:20 am
Well, I just mean that the conlanger of this language found a way to insert a joke. The fact that this is actually realistic makes this joke actually funnier.
Maybe I’m being ridiculous here, but I don’t see the joke…
https://pastebin.com/TLRt3UXF
I did see that, actually, but didn’t see it as being a joke. Tok Pisin has the same thing as well:
3s: em (< “him”)
3d: tupela (< “two-fellow”)
3t: tripela (< “three-fellow”)
3p: ol (< “all”)
It has the same thing in all it’s other pronouns as well;
Wikipedia has a nice chart.
Re: If natlangs were conlangs
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:44 pm
by Richard W
bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:08 pm
I did see that, actually, but didn’t see it as being a joke. Tok Pisin has the same thing as well:
3s: em (< “him”)
3d: tupela (< “two-fellow”)
3t: tripela (< “three-fellow”)
3p: ol (< “all”)
It has the same thing in all it’s other pronouns as well;
Wikipedia has a nice chart.
The 'joke' lies in the etymology of
tugeta. Allegedly it derives from English
together, with the first syllable being misanalysed as the numeral
tu. It's not sure as there doesn't seem to be a second person pronoun *
yutugeta, and the phonetics are a bit odd. I'm not aware of Tok Pisin having a pronoun *
tugeta, so it's not quite the same thing.