Zompist Bboard Again

It has been over a year ago that I started work on the Boul language (natively: /bɔ·úl gɔ́d/), and it has cycled through various names since then. Somewhere last year I got burned out a bit; the worldbuilding swelled beyond control and my efforts to trim it into something more manageable burnt me out. Now that a bit of that haze has dissipated and some of the enthusiasm is coming back I want to continue this project.

I liked that Boul masquerades as a plausible naturalistic language, but at the same time tests a number of linguistic universals, thus not aiming for realism overall. Some other motifs that I liked to explore were Boul's pitch accent system, aspect-driven verbs and colorful, or even peacockish patterns of reduplication.

Initially I spent a lot of attention into developing an elaborate dictionary with heaps of semantic, etymological and encyclopedic information, which was cool, I guess, but also made the project more and more megalomaniacal and altogether very straining. This is a trap I will have to learn to avoid.

Raholeun wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:36 am I liked that Boul masquerades as a plausible naturalistic language, but at the same time tests a number of linguistic universals, thus not aiming for realism overall. Some other motifs that I liked to explore were Boul's pitch accent system, aspect-driven verbs and colorful, or even peacockish patterns of reduplication.

I’d love to hear more about this language sometime!

I've been re-working my proto-language to try to give me more diverse vocabulary for more interesting results. I've decided on introducing syllabic consonants (inspired by PIE). One thing I thought of was having word-initial syllabic /s/ as a means of derivation. So a root like √KAR could yield /s̩.kara/ (which would likely yield something like esgar in my P conlang and icsar/ixar in the L conlang). However, when trying to find info on syllabic consonants, /s̩/ doesn't seem to crop up. I'm guessing syllabic /s/ isn't naturalistic? But if I try articulating a word like /s̩.kara/ I find it incredibly easy and can't see that it would be a totally far-fetched concept.

Nuxalk does have syllabic /s/, among other syllabic consonants (really, consult it regarding anyting syllabic - ANADEW). IIRC some other languages of the area also have syllabic fricatives.

Psst, I think it may exist marginally in many environments. Related, what about PIE *sth₂to-s?

Jonlang wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 3:49 pm I've been re-working my proto-language to try to give me more diverse vocabulary for more interesting results. I've decided on introducing syllabic consonants (inspired by PIE). One thing I thought of was having word-initial syllabic /s/ as a means of derivation. So a root like √KAR could yield /s̩.kara/ (which would likely yield something like esgar in my P conlang and icsar/ixar in the L conlang). However, when trying to find info on syllabic consonants, /s̩/ doesn't seem to crop up. I'm guessing syllabic /s/ isn't naturalistic? But if I try articulating a word like /s̩.kara/ I find it incredibly easy and can't see that it would be a totally far-fetched concept.

Nuxalk has already been mentioned. Another good language to look at is Tashlhiyt: see Ridouane 2008.

I’ll also note that quite a few languages allow non-syllabic /s/ at the syllable boundaries even when it violates sonority principles: this is the case for English and Classical Tibetan, amongst others.

Jonlang wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 3:49 pm I've been re-working my proto-language to try to give me more diverse vocabulary for more interesting results. I've decided on introducing syllabic consonants (inspired by PIE). One thing I thought of was having word-initial syllabic /s/ as a means of derivation. So a root like √KAR could yield /s̩.kara/ (which would likely yield something like esgar in my P conlang and icsar/ixar in the L conlang). However, when trying to find info on syllabic consonants, /s̩/ doesn't seem to crop up. I'm guessing syllabic /s/ isn't naturalistic? But if I try articulating a word like /s̩.kara/ I find it incredibly easy and can't see that it would be a totally far-fetched concept.

It is naturalistic, actually.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:53 pm I’ll also note that quite a few languages allow non-syllabic /s/ at the syllable boundaries even when it violates sonority principles: this is the case for English and Classical Tibetan, amongst others.

It has actually been argued that this /s/ in languages such as English is extrasyllabic.

Thanks peeps! I think I can justify having syllabic /s/ now.

Jonlang wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 3:49 pmBut if I try articulating a word like /s̩.kara/ I find it incredibly easy and can't see that it would be a totally far-fetched concept.

It's not, I think, that it isn't easy to pronounce, but that non-sylabic /ska.ra/ would be even easier. /s/ can combine with about any consonant syllabically (either before or after), so you'd have to give a good reason why you would consider it syllabic (note I can think of a few, e.g. if you have infixes that are allowed between the s and the following consonants, or if you allow certain sC combinations when s is syllabic but not when it's not, etc.).

Note that Slavic languages have some single-consonant words (like /v/ and /z/ or /s/), but I'm not sure whether these are considered syllabic or clitic.


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 9:29 am It's not, I think, that it isn't easy to pronounce, but that non-sylabic /ska.ra/ would be even easier. /s/ can combine with about any consonant syllabically (either before or after),

That's so in the phonotactics of most European languages, but it's not a universal. Some Romance languages went through a stage where #sC- was not an allowed cluster, which gives you e.g. French étoile, Spanish estrella for Latin stella. I wouldn't exclude that this went through a "syllabic s" stage.

Note that Slavic languages have some single-consonant words (like /v/ and /z/ or /s/), but I'm not sure whether these are considered syllabic or clitic.

Clitic to the next word (they all are prepositions), at least in Russian and Polish. If you want to pronounce them separately, e.g. when slowly dictating something, you add a shwa (/v@/, /z@/, /s@/).

hwhatting wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 1:39 pm

Note that Slavic languages have some single-consonant words (like /v/ and /z/ or /s/), but I'm not sure whether these are considered syllabic or clitic.

Clitic to the next word (they all are prepositions), at least in Russian and Polish. If you want to pronounce them separately, e.g. when slowly dictating something, you add a shwa (/v@/, /z@/, /s@/).

It is should be remembered that in some Slavic languages, /v/ next to a placename starting in a vowel frequently got permanently glued onto the placename in question due to its locative function, and consequently lost its status as an independent word.

What are the different types of conlanger? Here are some that I've met in the wild:

The Weird for the Sake of Weird
“Your Japonic conlang that you spent five years making as realistic as possible doesn’t have a series of pharyngealized ejectives. What a wasted opportunity!”

The Inch Deep Surveyor
“Onondaga doesn’t have labial stops, so it’s perfectly realistic for English in 2120 to unconditionally lose all labials.”

The IAL Purist
“You can’t expect people to learn a phoneme that’s not found in their native language. That’s why no one is bilingual today.”

The Euphonist
“Eelithly Inthi Keelil Ielei leth theelile.”

The Dark Euphonist
“Khorghatch Garbargl Dochmalakh Chaugbuck.”

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 12:39 am What are the different types of conlanger?

None of those sound like me. I think I’d have to be a Typological Monster:
“What, your conlang has nouny adjectives and no morphological tense? But that combination isn’t naturalistic enough!”

And then of course there’s the Perfect Conlanger: the one who knows their natlangs forwards and backwards, who is a font of knowledge on even the most obscure of linguistic topics, who can create conlangs from flawlessly naturalistic to interestingly alien in a matter of hours. But who’s ever heard of one of those? (Except zompist, of course.)

I think that almost none of the people here fit any of those categories. Most here seem to just hobby along :).


JAL

Is it naturalistic to have a dual number in the 3rd person to mean something like "those two, the two of them"?

Jonlang wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:03 am Is it naturalistic to have a dual number in the 3rd person to mean something like "those two, the two of them"?

You mean, as part of the table of personal pronouns or demonstrative pronouns? Sure, cf. standard Arabic هما humaa 'they both, those two, the two of them' (a personal pronoun), هذان haaðaani 'those two' (two men, or one man and one woman, demonstrative pronoun), هتان haataani 'those two women' (demonstrative pronoun).

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 3:17 pm

Jonlang wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:03 am Is it naturalistic to have a dual number in the 3rd person to mean something like "those two, the two of them"?

You mean, as part of the table of personal pronouns or demonstrative pronouns? Sure, cf. standard Arabic هما humaa 'they both, those two, the two of them' (a personal pronoun), هذان haaðaani 'those two' (two men, or one man and one woman, demonstrative pronoun), هتان haataani 'those two women' (demonstrative pronoun).

As in pronouns, yes. But looking at Arabic on Wikipedia it seems as though it is a thing

Urgh, I also gave you the proximal demonstrative pronouns above ('these two'), not the distal ones ('those two'). The latter would be ذانك ðaanika and تانك taanika.

Considering making a "reverse Japanese" conlang for the main non-human species in the space fantasy I'm writing.

Well, not quite. I'm considering giving the majority language they speak VSO word order, prepositions and strongly head first tendencies, but taking some details from Japanese that I enjoy (pro-drop, levels of politeness shown by different verb forms/aux verbs as well as word choice, mostly open syllables, etc). This is likely to break my brain a bit because, despite being a native English speaker, I tend to find Japanese grammar pretty intuitive and English itself is as much or more head last than it is head first.

Would there be anything in particular that I should be aware of/careful about while making this language to keep it as cohesive as possible? Has anyone studying head first languages irl found any interesting details you've enjoyed working into conlangs or just in the use of the language itself?