well for one there's no <v> in the gothic alphabet :p and i didn't want to deal with making new characters (otherwise i'd probably have done some diacritics)
Conlang Random Thread
Re: Conlang Random Thread
-
Otto Kretschmer
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:09 pm
- Location: Poland
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Rounin
I just wanted to compare it with Japanese. Outwardly it looks simian.
I just wanted to compare it with Japanese. Outwardly it looks simian.
Re: Conlang Random Thread
It's not the translation challenge thread, but let's have a go:
Dis de mi it Fway Rays an fles wen ifning it.
JAL
Re: Conlang Random Thread
question about germanic adjective declension:
my plan with adjectives in the modern gothic project is to keep strong vs weak adjective declension, but to not have any articles (i'm finding conflicting information about the status of articles in gothic, but as far as i can tell it seems like they were basically starting to develop but hadn't yet become entrenched by the time the extant texts were written). so, at least for nouns without determiners in front of them, the indication of whether a noun was definite or indefinite would come from whether it had a weak or strong adjective (and possibly also syntactical clues, since obviously not every noun phrase is going to have an adjective in it). to me this feels like an interesting direction to go: it diverges from the normal germanic path of developing definite and indefinite articles, while still using a distinctly germanic feature in a way that has some historical support but isn't found in the modern germanic languages of today (at least not in the same way). it would also bring gothic a little closer to its neighboring east slavic languages, which don't have articles either
someone who took a look at my quick write-up on anthologi.ca, however, suggested that that seemed unrealistic, and now i'm not really sure about it. the general conversation we had is below (edited for clarity and relevance):
do they have a point? does this seem like an unusual thing for adjective declensions to do? i'm so confused lol
my plan with adjectives in the modern gothic project is to keep strong vs weak adjective declension, but to not have any articles (i'm finding conflicting information about the status of articles in gothic, but as far as i can tell it seems like they were basically starting to develop but hadn't yet become entrenched by the time the extant texts were written). so, at least for nouns without determiners in front of them, the indication of whether a noun was definite or indefinite would come from whether it had a weak or strong adjective (and possibly also syntactical clues, since obviously not every noun phrase is going to have an adjective in it). to me this feels like an interesting direction to go: it diverges from the normal germanic path of developing definite and indefinite articles, while still using a distinctly germanic feature in a way that has some historical support but isn't found in the modern germanic languages of today (at least not in the same way). it would also bring gothic a little closer to its neighboring east slavic languages, which don't have articles either
someone who took a look at my quick write-up on anthologi.ca, however, suggested that that seemed unrealistic, and now i'm not really sure about it. the general conversation we had is below (edited for clarity and relevance):
More: show
-
Moose-tache
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Declension may arise due to phological processes, but once it's associated with a grammatical function, it can migrate to other functions. We know this had already happened with Germanic adjectives before the language family even broke up, because whatever the phonological process that created weak adjectives* was long gone and the different forms were being used for purposes not immediately based on whatever that process might have been.
* It kind of looks like the weak forms have a clitic -n, but who knows what that represents (the Slavic equivalent comes from the demonstrative jos, which means sense, but -n? What is that?).
Bottom line: if the weak declensions have already quit their original contextual origin to find new employment, your conlang can do the same without issue. The problem comes when people say things like "definiteness is marked by making the third vowel long" or something, which does not apply here.
* It kind of looks like the weak forms have a clitic -n, but who knows what that represents (the Slavic equivalent comes from the demonstrative jos, which means sense, but -n? What is that?).
Bottom line: if the weak declensions have already quit their original contextual origin to find new employment, your conlang can do the same without issue. The problem comes when people say things like "definiteness is marked by making the third vowel long" or something, which does not apply here.
I did it. I made the world's worst book review blog.
Re: Conlang Random Thread
"THEM" say some very apodictic things without seeming to know too much about historical IE linguistics.
1) As you say, the strong vs. weak distinction involves definiteness. That partially goes back to PIE - see how in IE languages personal names (= definite individuals) based on adjectives often are n-stems = weak declension (Plato, Nero etc.), while the adjectives themselves are vocalic stems (=strong declension). Germanic just ran with that and systemised it.
2) It's probable that this is due to areal influence from Balto-Slavic, where a distinction between definite and indefinite adjectives exists that is actually based on inclusion of a deictic element, which "THEM" see as the only path.- the indefinite adjective has the simple o/a stem, while the definite adjective adds the pronoun -yo- (which is attested as relative pronoun in Indo-Iranian and also a building block of the relative pronoun in parts of Slavic). So you have a contrast of (Slavic example) dobra "good" (Nom.Sg.F. indef.) vs. dobraya (Nom.Sg.F. def.).
3) This system survives in contemporary Lithuanian; it doesn't work exactly as an article, but often in a sence of "specific item" vs. "non-specific item", e.g. juoda jūra ("indef") "a / the black sea (= a / the sea that is black)" vs. Juodoji jūra (def) "the Black Sea" (the specific geographical feature that is called that way).
4) In Slavic, that system is retained in the oldest attested languages; in the ones I know best, Russian and Polish, it has been repurposed or turned into a difference between inflection of word classes. In Russian, the former definite forms are called "long form" and the indefinite forms "short forms". Adjectives used as attributes only have the long forms (with a couple of exceptions - possessive adjectives use (only) the short forms, and there are a few short forms in frozen expressions). The distinction is maintained only in predicative position, where the short forms express that the quality is transitory or exists only in relation to the subject (ona - bol'na - "she is ill (now)" vs. ona - bol'naya "she is ill (constantly) / she is crazy"; shtany - dlinnye "the trousers are long (generally / objectively) vs. shtany - dliny - "the trousers are (too) long (for a specific person)". In Polish, the picture is complicated by the fact that some of the "long" (definite) endings have bee contracted (so Polish -a Nom.Sg. F. corresponds to both Proto-Slavic *-a and *-aya), but where the long and short forms can still be distinguished, the long forms are used for "regular" adjectives (both in attributive and predicative use), e.g. dobry "good", while the short forms are used for certain adjectives that have pronoun-like uses (e.g. pewien "a certain") and for modals that are mostly used predicatively (powinien "(is) oblige, must").
EDIT: I see now that Moose answered while I was on and off composing my response. As to the question where the n-stems come from, I have seen different proposals - one is that they're originally postposed instances of the adverb *en "inside"; another, that they go back to Nostratic / Boreal / Mitian (pick your macro-family of choice here), as /n/ shows up as a stem-forming element also in other Eurasian families (e.g. Turkic, Mongolic).
1) As you say, the strong vs. weak distinction involves definiteness. That partially goes back to PIE - see how in IE languages personal names (= definite individuals) based on adjectives often are n-stems = weak declension (Plato, Nero etc.), while the adjectives themselves are vocalic stems (=strong declension). Germanic just ran with that and systemised it.
2) It's probable that this is due to areal influence from Balto-Slavic, where a distinction between definite and indefinite adjectives exists that is actually based on inclusion of a deictic element, which "THEM" see as the only path.- the indefinite adjective has the simple o/a stem, while the definite adjective adds the pronoun -yo- (which is attested as relative pronoun in Indo-Iranian and also a building block of the relative pronoun in parts of Slavic). So you have a contrast of (Slavic example) dobra "good" (Nom.Sg.F. indef.) vs. dobraya (Nom.Sg.F. def.).
3) This system survives in contemporary Lithuanian; it doesn't work exactly as an article, but often in a sence of "specific item" vs. "non-specific item", e.g. juoda jūra ("indef") "a / the black sea (= a / the sea that is black)" vs. Juodoji jūra (def) "the Black Sea" (the specific geographical feature that is called that way).
4) In Slavic, that system is retained in the oldest attested languages; in the ones I know best, Russian and Polish, it has been repurposed or turned into a difference between inflection of word classes. In Russian, the former definite forms are called "long form" and the indefinite forms "short forms". Adjectives used as attributes only have the long forms (with a couple of exceptions - possessive adjectives use (only) the short forms, and there are a few short forms in frozen expressions). The distinction is maintained only in predicative position, where the short forms express that the quality is transitory or exists only in relation to the subject (ona - bol'na - "she is ill (now)" vs. ona - bol'naya "she is ill (constantly) / she is crazy"; shtany - dlinnye "the trousers are long (generally / objectively) vs. shtany - dliny - "the trousers are (too) long (for a specific person)". In Polish, the picture is complicated by the fact that some of the "long" (definite) endings have bee contracted (so Polish -a Nom.Sg. F. corresponds to both Proto-Slavic *-a and *-aya), but where the long and short forms can still be distinguished, the long forms are used for "regular" adjectives (both in attributive and predicative use), e.g. dobry "good", while the short forms are used for certain adjectives that have pronoun-like uses (e.g. pewien "a certain") and for modals that are mostly used predicatively (powinien "(is) oblige, must").
EDIT: I see now that Moose answered while I was on and off composing my response. As to the question where the n-stems come from, I have seen different proposals - one is that they're originally postposed instances of the adverb *en "inside"; another, that they go back to Nostratic / Boreal / Mitian (pick your macro-family of choice here), as /n/ shows up as a stem-forming element also in other Eurasian families (e.g. Turkic, Mongolic).
Re: Conlang Random Thread
you mean similar, right?Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:33 pm Rounin
I just wanted to compare it with Japanese. Outwardly it looks simian.
-
Otto Kretschmer
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:09 pm
- Location: Poland
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Uep. That was a jokekeenir wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:11 pmyou mean similar, right?Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:33 pm Rounin
I just wanted to compare it with Japanese. Outwardly it looks simian.
-
Man in Space
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:05 am
Re: Conlang Random Thread
A few questions about Classical Ĝare n Tim Ar. First, the phonology, in its current state, is as follows:
/m n ŋ/ m n ĝ
/θ s x h/ d s ḫ h
/ɬ/ ł
/ɹ ʕ/ r g
/l/ l
/à è ø̀ ì ỳ ɤ̀ ò ɯ̀ ù/ a e ö i ü ë o ï u
/á é ǿ í ý ɤ́ ó ɯ́ ú/ á é ô í û ê ó î ú
/m̩ n̩ ŋ̩ l̩ ɹ̩/ m n ĝ l r
(C)V(C), unless V is one of the syllabic resonants, which cannot take codas
Question 1. Should I add clicks to CT? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On the one hand, CT has been more or less like this for about fifteen years. On the other hand, I absolutely love clicks and think they're underutilized and sound cool.
The following sub-questions are only applicable if the answer to Question 1 is "yes":
Question 1a. Should bilabial clicks be added to CT? The only bilabial consonant in CT currently is /m/, and I have half a mind to keep it that way. However, I'd only have clicks at three places of articulation (+ lateral alveolars) if I did this.
Question 1b. Which click series should be included? I wouldn't include a voicing distinction amongst the clicks (to fit in with the rest of the language), but I'd be inclined to include nasalized versions of the clicks as well. So something like /kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/. But would ejectives make sense with this phonology, or aspirates (given how fast and loose /h/ can behave in CT)? And/or preglottalized clicks, perhaps? What about fricated ones?
Question 1c. How should the clicks be romanized? The font family I am fond of using, TT Marxiana, doesn't support clicks (or the velar nasal), so I'd have to find alternate means. My inclination is to romanize in one of the following manners:
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ b mb z nz j nj q nq
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ k@ n@ k| n| k|| n|| k! n! k# n#
The first option reminds me of Xhosa, but doesn't get across the unusual nature of clicks (IMO anyway). The second looks egregious (especially the @ and #), but otherwise gets things across in a clear—and font-supported—manner.
Question 2. Should I axe the syllabic resonants? I don't like them much, but they do have some applicability vis-à-vis genitives and measure-words.
/m n ŋ/ m n ĝ
/θ s x h/ d s ḫ h
/ɬ/ ł
/ɹ ʕ/ r g
/l/ l
/à è ø̀ ì ỳ ɤ̀ ò ɯ̀ ù/ a e ö i ü ë o ï u
/á é ǿ í ý ɤ́ ó ɯ́ ú/ á é ô í û ê ó î ú
/m̩ n̩ ŋ̩ l̩ ɹ̩/ m n ĝ l r
(C)V(C), unless V is one of the syllabic resonants, which cannot take codas
Question 1. Should I add clicks to CT? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On the one hand, CT has been more or less like this for about fifteen years. On the other hand, I absolutely love clicks and think they're underutilized and sound cool.
The following sub-questions are only applicable if the answer to Question 1 is "yes":
Question 1a. Should bilabial clicks be added to CT? The only bilabial consonant in CT currently is /m/, and I have half a mind to keep it that way. However, I'd only have clicks at three places of articulation (+ lateral alveolars) if I did this.
Question 1b. Which click series should be included? I wouldn't include a voicing distinction amongst the clicks (to fit in with the rest of the language), but I'd be inclined to include nasalized versions of the clicks as well. So something like /kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/. But would ejectives make sense with this phonology, or aspirates (given how fast and loose /h/ can behave in CT)? And/or preglottalized clicks, perhaps? What about fricated ones?
Question 1c. How should the clicks be romanized? The font family I am fond of using, TT Marxiana, doesn't support clicks (or the velar nasal), so I'd have to find alternate means. My inclination is to romanize in one of the following manners:
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ b mb z nz j nj q nq
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ k@ n@ k| n| k|| n|| k! n! k# n#
The first option reminds me of Xhosa, but doesn't get across the unusual nature of clicks (IMO anyway). The second looks egregious (especially the @ and #), but otherwise gets things across in a clear—and font-supported—manner.
Question 2. Should I axe the syllabic resonants? I don't like them much, but they do have some applicability vis-à-vis genitives and measure-words.
Re: Conlang Random Thread
No, I like CT the way it is. However, by all means give it clicky ancestors and/or relatives!Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 5:30 pm Question 1. Should I add clicks to CT? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On the one hand, CT has been more or less like this for about fifteen years. On the other hand, I absolutely love clicks and think they're underutilized and sound cool.
For those ones, assuming their non-click phonology is more or less the same as CT:
Clicks at three places of articulation is perfectly normal — bilabial clicks are actually pretty rare (attested only in Taa–ǃKwi and ǂʼAmkoe).Question 1a. Should bilabial clicks be added to CT? The only bilabial consonant in CT currently is /m/, and I have half a mind to keep it that way. However, I'd only have clicks at three places of articulation (+ lateral alveolars) if I did this.
I’d keep it simple. Ejectives probably don’t make sense here, though aspirates do. Preglottalised clicks are pretty common also, due to ease of production. Fricated clicks could also work. You might also want to consider uvular clicks, as found in e.g. ǃXóõ. I think I’d tend towards something like a three-way tenuis/aspirated/nasal distinction.Question 1b. Which click series should be included? I wouldn't include a voicing distinction amongst the clicks (to fit in with the rest of the language), but I'd be inclined to include nasalized versions of the clicks as well. So something like /kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/. But would ejectives make sense with this phonology, or aspirates (given how fast and loose /h/ can behave in CT)? And/or preglottalized clicks, perhaps? What about fricated ones?
The standard typewriter convention is ⟨/ // ! ≠⟩ for /ǀ ǁ ǃ ǂ/ respectively. (Apparently ⟨=⟩ has also been used for /ǂ/, at least according to Wikipedia, though I’ve never seen it.) Bantu languages have standardised on ⟨c x q⟩ for the first three; ⟨ç⟩ seems most popular for the fourth, though Tindall apparently used ⟨v⟩, as do I in my keyboard layout. Wikipedia says Linguasphere uses ⟨c' l' q' t'⟩, which seems like a nice alternative if you want to distinguish them from the rest of the alphabet.Question 1c. How should the clicks be romanized? The font family I am fond of using, TT Marxiana, doesn't support clicks (or the velar nasal), so I'd have to find alternate means. My inclination is to romanize in one of the following manners:
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ b mb z nz j nj q nq
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ k@ n@ k| n| k|| n|| k! n! k# n#
The first option reminds me of Xhosa, but doesn't get across the unusual nature of clicks (IMO anyway). The second looks egregious (especially the @ and #), but otherwise gets things across in a clear—and font-supported—manner.
I think I’d romanise the alternatives as follows in each system:
/kǀ kǀʰ ᵑǀ ǀˀ ǀq ǀx ǀkʼ/
⟨/ /h n/ /' /q /x /k'⟩
⟨c ch nc c' cq cr ck⟩
⟨c' c'h nc' qc' c'q c'x c'k⟩
I don’t think so; why not keep them.Question 2. Should I axe the syllabic resonants? I don't like them much, but they do have some applicability vis-à-vis genitives and measure-words.
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Serial Verb Constructions
Serial verb constructions I imagine would be a good addition to Proto Elenyiwa. So….
1.sg get-1.2 move-1.2-in coin-OBL-pl
“I get coins to enter”
3.sg.f get-A.I coin-OBL-pl buy-A.I thing-ACC-pl
“She gets coins to buy stuff”
More interesting is a construction from mandarin where the object of the first verb is the subject of the next. In this case the second verb appears in its intransitive form i.e the unmarked.
cat pounce-A.A die mouse-OBL
“The cat pounces on the mouse killing it”
“The cat pounces, the mouse dies”
Also see…
cat pounce-A.A die mouse-ACC
“The cat pounces at the mouse and the mouse dies (probably of fright)”
Note the contrast between the first and second sentences is in defiance of the normal Accusative=Telic Oblique=Atelic construction but is seen in many daughters co-occuring with the normal construction because the Oblique has a more locative meaning than the accusative compare english “the cat pounces on the mouse” vs “the cat pounces the mouse”. Whether this interpretation is due to an ancestral state in the proto language or due to association with the Obliques frequent usage with prepositions is unknown. Also note in some daughters the differing cases in the below examples would be because the directional element on the verb is less prominent.
1.sg.fs call-1.2.F move-to 3.sg.M-OBL
“I call and he comes”
1.sg.fs call-1.2.F move-continous-to 3.sg.m-ACC
“I call and he is coming”
1.sg.fs call-1.2.f move-discontinuous-to 3.sg.m-ACC
“I call and he will be coming”
But…
1.sg.fs call-1.2.f 3.sg.m-OBL move-subordinate-to 1.sg.fs-ACC
“I call and he comes to me”
The added object demands a subordinate clause.
I imagine the second construct survives a bit longer in the daughter language compared to the first due to verb fronting so…
get-1.2 move-QUAL-in 1.sg coin-DAT~LAT-pl
“I get coins to enter” but it’s more like “I get entering coins”
But…
pounce-A.A cat die mouse-ACC
“The cat pounces, the mouse dies”
In later stages of this language due to possible reinterpretation of the bare verb form it may become…
pounce-A.A cat die-A.A mouse
“The cat pounces and kills the mouse”
Alternatively the second verb just appears in a newly innovated infinitive.
Btw in this daughter the previous Oblique has replaced the Accusative and the Lative the Dative in most cases but i’m not sure if it has a new Lative yet.
Serial verb constructions I imagine would be a good addition to Proto Elenyiwa. So….
1.sg get-1.2 move-1.2-in coin-OBL-pl
“I get coins to enter”
3.sg.f get-A.I coin-OBL-pl buy-A.I thing-ACC-pl
“She gets coins to buy stuff”
More interesting is a construction from mandarin where the object of the first verb is the subject of the next. In this case the second verb appears in its intransitive form i.e the unmarked.
cat pounce-A.A die mouse-OBL
“The cat pounces on the mouse killing it”
“The cat pounces, the mouse dies”
Also see…
cat pounce-A.A die mouse-ACC
“The cat pounces at the mouse and the mouse dies (probably of fright)”
Note the contrast between the first and second sentences is in defiance of the normal Accusative=Telic Oblique=Atelic construction but is seen in many daughters co-occuring with the normal construction because the Oblique has a more locative meaning than the accusative compare english “the cat pounces on the mouse” vs “the cat pounces the mouse”. Whether this interpretation is due to an ancestral state in the proto language or due to association with the Obliques frequent usage with prepositions is unknown. Also note in some daughters the differing cases in the below examples would be because the directional element on the verb is less prominent.
1.sg.fs call-1.2.F move-to 3.sg.M-OBL
“I call and he comes”
1.sg.fs call-1.2.F move-continous-to 3.sg.m-ACC
“I call and he is coming”
1.sg.fs call-1.2.f move-discontinuous-to 3.sg.m-ACC
“I call and he will be coming”
But…
1.sg.fs call-1.2.f 3.sg.m-OBL move-subordinate-to 1.sg.fs-ACC
“I call and he comes to me”
The added object demands a subordinate clause.
I imagine the second construct survives a bit longer in the daughter language compared to the first due to verb fronting so…
get-1.2 move-QUAL-in 1.sg coin-DAT~LAT-pl
“I get coins to enter” but it’s more like “I get entering coins”
But…
pounce-A.A cat die mouse-ACC
“The cat pounces, the mouse dies”
In later stages of this language due to possible reinterpretation of the bare verb form it may become…
pounce-A.A cat die-A.A mouse
“The cat pounces and kills the mouse”
Alternatively the second verb just appears in a newly innovated infinitive.
Btw in this daughter the previous Oblique has replaced the Accusative and the Lative the Dative in most cases but i’m not sure if it has a new Lative yet.
Re: Conlang Random Thread
This reminds me I have yet to formally describe the serial verb construction in Sajiwan. It's not as elaborate as some of the examples in the post above, but replaces cases where English uses present participles or when English uses "and":
Im swayk pon mi lef wok - He hit me and left / He hit me while leaving
Im lef wok swayk pon mi - He left hitting me / When he left he hit me
JAL
Im swayk pon mi lef wok - He hit me and left / He hit me while leaving
Im lef wok swayk pon mi - He left hitting me / When he left he hit me
JAL
Re: Conlang Random Thread
https://tinyurl.com/mrxppx7p [PDF file]
So, I was given the go ahead to show at least some basics of the language. Sorry I can't post more, but feel free to ask about anything in the above document.
https://twitter.com/Dedalvs/status/1511 ... jkXHQ&s=19
So, David decided to give a short class based on the document above, enjoy!
So, I was given the go ahead to show at least some basics of the language. Sorry I can't post more, but feel free to ask about anything in the above document.
https://twitter.com/Dedalvs/status/1511 ... jkXHQ&s=19
So, David decided to give a short class based on the document above, enjoy!
-
Moose-tache
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Wait, I thought you made this. What does DJP have to do with it?
EDIT: ignore me. Somehow I missed the explanation on previous pages. Still great work, Masako.
EDIT: ignore me. Somehow I missed the explanation on previous pages. Still great work, Masako.
Last edited by Moose-tache on Tue Apr 05, 2022 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
I did it. I made the world's worst book review blog.
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:42 am Wait, I thought you made this. What does DJP have to do with it?
masako wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:41 pmI happily admit that the general syntax was all him, but the verbal instrumentals were mine, and that's only important because it makes up the bulk of lexicon. I did work on a few things that haven't made it on screen, and likely won't; an octal numbering system, and a triaxial coordinate system, to name a few. Not sure what inspired me, *cough* ALC *cough* TCL *cough*
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
-
quinterbeck
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:19 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Thanks for sharing! And congrats on having your work on screen! (since I haven't yet said so)masako wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:10 pm https://tinyurl.com/mrxppx7p [PDF file]
So, I was given the go ahead to show at least some basics of the language. Sorry I can't post more, but feel free to ask about anything in the above document.
There's quite a lot of bracketed phones in there, what exactly is that signifying? Are they all non-phonemic? I'm interested in how they're arising if so. (I suppose that the romanisation distinguishes them all for the purpose of being accessible for actors etc, then?)
Have to say I really love the abundance of voiceless velarized release in this inventory
Re: Conlang Random Thread
i have try to create 5 coins:
Zentias & Draches
Zentias & Draches
-
Man in Space
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:05 am
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Out of the loop and don't find anything on the last few pages - what is masako's conlang about?
/j/ <j>
Ɂaləɂahina asəkipaɂə ileku omkiroro salka.
Loɂ ɂerleku asəɂulŋusikraɂə seləɂahina əɂətlahɂun əiŋɂiɂŋa.
Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ.
Ɂaləɂahina asəkipaɂə ileku omkiroro salka.
Loɂ ɂerleku asəɂulŋusikraɂə seləɂahina əɂətlahɂun əiŋɂiɂŋa.
Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ. Hərlaɂ.
-
Man in Space
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:05 am
Re: Conlang Random Thread
It’s a commission for the new HALO series.