Conlang Random Thread

[chris_notts]

So which set of consonants do you think is most distinctive in coda position mid-word, {j, N, χ, 0} or {j, N, f, 0}?

I think they’re both equally distinctive. [χ] and [ʃ] already feel very far away to me, and [χ] and [j] even further apart. But really, I think it all depends on how your language structures its consonants — e.g. in Hebrew they’d be straightforwardly different, whereas in Spanish (where [j~ʝ] can merge into [ʒ] and [x] can be velar) they might be considered a lot more similar. I recall Nortaneous talking about the fact that which phonemes ‘choose’ to interact with which others can be quite different between languages; something similar applies here, I think.

The phonology as currently written says that /j/ does sometimes undergo fortition towards a voiced fricative, but mostly in onset position and especially word initially, not as a coda. As for /χ/... the language has both /k/ and /q/, but only one back fricative that I had considered to cover the range x~χ. Assuming that the fricatives are partly the product of some kind of lenition process, which would be required for a synchronic k~x/k~f alternation anyway, you could imagine q->χ and a more inconsistent k->x->χ, OR k->x->f.

I think I'll probably go with /f/ for now. With more complex agglutinative morphologies I always worry about accidentally creating too much ambiguity or too little distinctiveness... aside from questions like this that concern distinctions within a given TAM... cluster, I've also written some Python scripts to compile all the possible forms and then identify the most similar / ambiguous pairs that cross sub-paradigms. A lot I'm happy with, e.g. the following differing by only 1 phoneme in some cases seem fine:

Independent Imperfective ~ Subordinate Imperfective (addition of subordinate n- in many cases)
Independent Perfective ~ Subordinate Perfective (addition of subordinate n- in many cases)
Subordinate Perfective ~ Subordinate Imperfective (contraction of nu-ta -> na means it's na- vs nu- in many cases)

A few others feel like they should be more distinct, so I've adjusted them a bit. In general I'm more concerned where the meaning is very different and the 1 phoneme difference is buried far inside then when it's in a prominent position (e.g. word-initially).

I guess I'm overthinking things, but it's one struggle I have with highly synthetic conlangs that I haven't been able to shake even after >20 years of conlanging.

[bradrn]

I think I'll probably go with /f/ for now. With more complex agglutinative morphologies I always worry about accidentally creating too much ambiguity or too little distinctiveness...

I don’t think you need to worry. Languages can tolerate such a ridiculous amount of ambiguity that I doubt a difference of a whole phoneme would be much of a problem. Consider also that whole sets of single-phoneme affixes are perfectly well-attested, and can even be quite stable diachronically: e.g. verbal cross-referencing prefixes in NW Caucasian.

[chris_notts]

I've been trying to tidy up my phonology chapter and make it more coherent, and this is the result of the phonology discussion/advice and private ruminations so far:

https://chrisintheweeds.files.wordpress ... xtract.pdf

Note: I made avoiding an initial accent a general thing instead of something specific to the verb complex.

A lot is based on Mayan, but the accent section is based on Murrinhpatha and Huave, and some parts are based on Sierra Popoluca, Belep, and other languages.

[chris_notts]

Spotted some mistakes, e.g. preverbal should be prevocalic in the orthography section.

[WeepingElf]

Spotted some mistakes, e.g. preverbal should be prevocalic in the orthography section.

And judging from your vowel chart, short vowels are laxer than long vowels.

[chris_notts]

Spotted some mistakes, e.g. preverbal should be prevocalic in the orthography section.

And judging from your vowel chart, short vowels are laxer than long vowels.

Darn it. Hopefully the intent was clear and it more or less makes sense as a whole though.

[bradrn]

Spotted some mistakes, e.g. preverbal should be prevocalic in the orthography section.

And judging from your vowel chart, short vowels are laxer than long vowels.

Personally, I can never get the two straight. In this day and age I see no reason to terms as horribly underdefined as ‘tense’ and ‘lax’ anyway.

[Jonlang]

Does anyone here put "Easter eggs" into their conlangs? I mean like little things which could be overlooked by the casual reader but some people may see what you've done. I was discussing this elsewhere today. For example, the Welsh word for 'waterfall' is rhaeadr [ˈr̥ʰeɨ̯.adr̩] and the name of a specific waterfall in my P conlang* is Rheiad Dêr /ˈr̥ɛi̯.ad deːr/ which means "long fall" - being a waterfall of some great height as to make it impassable.

* - Yes, I have written some story sketches and outlines, coined some names, but no I haven't yet given P a name.

[Man in Space]

Does anyone here put "Easter eggs" into their conlangs?

All the time—here is a list of mostly just board-related eggs in CT. There are many more.

[Emily]

i've put the same kids in the hall joke in like 6 different conlangs at this point

[Moose-tache]

i've put the same kids in the hall joke in like 6 different conlangs at this point

Gameshow in Modern Gothic: "Wats du fili?"

[Emily]

lol, no it's been /skura/ meaning "shark"

[chris_notts]

I'm thinking on and off about what a preference to incorporate basic complements would mean. Some questions:

1. Locational predicates classify the located object. Is this lost in the copular case in favour of a single verb, e.g. -a' "sit, 3d object" also being used for all permanent states of affairs, or is some classification retained? If so, should it be reduced compared to the locational classification case, which also distinguishes orientation in some cases? Orientation is not very relevant for permanent states.

2. Does this apply to identity statements? Probably not... Can't see "I am your father" being I your-father-am, although I do think there's maybe an interesting split here between nouns which are relational and others. -ii' "do" also, I think, should mean "act as, act in the capacity of", which then means you can form verbs with incorporated relational nouns like:

taitetarii' IMPFV-1-APPL-father-do = "I father him, I act in the capacity of a father to him"

3. What to do about complex NPs like "I'm a tall man"? Adj-N compounds are possible, but I'm not sure incorporating them should be the standard way to express a complex copula complement. Could split it, e.g. I-man-am, I-tall-am, or could allow an unincorporated alternative for complex complements, or could incorporate the focal element and allow the rest to remain outside the verb, e.g. I-tall-am the man = I'm a tall man, I-man-am the tall = I'm a tall man

[keenir]

I'm thinking on and off about what a preference to incorporate basic complements would mean. Some questions:

1. Locational predicates classify the located object. Is this lost in the copular case in favour of a single verb, e.g. -a' "sit, 3d object" also being used for all permanent states of affairs, or is some classification retained? If so, should it be reduced compared to the locational classification case, which also distinguishes orientation in some cases? Orientation is not very relevant for permanent states.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by classification...do you mean it would say what you're sitting on? ie, sitting on wood/chair

Maybe for permanent states, the orientation becomes/is the default? like "Today the President signed into law XYZ" and either signed, president or both are using the Sitting orientation.

2. Does this apply to identity statements? Probably not... Can't see "I am your father" being I your-father-am,

maybe... I-am your-father-am ?

3. What to do about complex NPs like "I'm a tall man"? Adj-N compounds are possible, but I'm not sure incorporating them should be the standard way to express a complex copula complement. Could split it, e.g. I-man-am, I-tall-am, or could allow an unincorporated alternative for complex complements, or could incorporate the focal element and allow the rest to remain outside the verb, e.g. I-tall-am the man = I'm a tall man, I-man-am the tall = I'm a tall man

Maybe have it along the lines of... I-tall-am-man-amFOCUS vs I-tall-amFOCUS-man-am ... or maybe I-tall-am-man-am (I)FOCUS-tall ?

[Ahzoh]

I have a language that I intend on making Ergative-Absolutive, at least when it comes to polypersonal agreement. I came up with an interesting idea that both serves to distinguish transitive verbs from intransitive ones and possibly hint at an origin to the language's ergative-absolutive nature. I wonder if it's plausible/naturalistic?

Intransitive:
о-ть-аі
NTR-be-3s.ABS
"he/she is"
о-м-аі
NTR-die-3s.ABS
"he/she dies"

Transitive:
ту-ть-аі
1s.ERG-be-3s.ABS
"I cause him/her to be"
ту-м-аі
1s.ERG-die-3s.ABS
"I kill him/her"

[chris_notts]

I have a language that I intend on making Ergative-Absolutive, at least when it comes to polypersonal agreement. I came up with an interesting idea that both serves to distinguish transitive verbs from intransitive ones and possibly hint at an origin to the language's ergative-absolutive nature. I wonder if it's plausible/naturalistic?

Intransitive:
о-ть-аі
NTR-be-3s.ABS
"he/she is"
о-м-аі
NTR-die-3s.ABS
"he/she dies"

Transitive:
ту-ть-аі
1s.ERG-be-3s.ABS
"I cause him/her to be"
ту-м-аі
1s.ERG-die-3s.ABS
"I kill him/her"

In a way this reminds me of the overt transitivisers of most Salish languages, which are also ergative in terms of their verbal agreement. I think those languages have a lot of S=P ambitransitives, so the transitiviser is almost a causative marker in those cases.

[chris_notts]

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by classification...do you mean it would say what you're sitting on? ie, sitting on wood/chair

This is the basic set of locative verb roots, which classify their subject (intransitive) or object (transitive) by orientation and inherent nature:

Code: Select all

INTRANS = be/move into configuration

-(h)a'   sitting animates, as well as compact 3d objects which are not notably elongated along any one dimensional. It is also the default positional for inanimate objects.
-yef	 standing animates, as well inanimates which are notably tall or extended vertically.
-tél     lying animates, as well as inanimates which are notably width or deep compared to their vertical extension.
-k'at    covers objects suspended, either within a medium (floating) or by a rope, hook etc. 
-ól      covers liquids, masses (e.g. grain, sand), large piles of objects, and abstract entities
-tzai    covers flexible objects such as rope and clothing
-cho'    covers objects of any state which are physically distributed or scattered, or which fall into various types

TRANS = have/put into configuration 

-be'     animate objects
-(h)a'tz    compact 3d objects which are not notably elongated along any one dimensional. It is also the default for inanimate objects.
-fin     long rigid objects of any orientation. Normally these objects must be long compared to the human body; smaller objects like pencils often take -a'tz unless their shape is relevant.
-te'tz   flat rigid objects of any orientation.
-k'án    attached or internal objects, especially body parts, organs.
-ótz     liquids, masses (e.g. grain, sand), large piles of objects, and abstract entities
-tzín    flexible objects such as rope and clothing
-chu'š   objects of any state which are physically distributed or scattered, or which fall into various types 

For this set, the static/motion distinction is encoded by inflection (directional/AM prefixes) and path is encoded by coverbs incorporated into the verb. Some basic examples:

iha' al yun o' = 3-sit LOC-DET house DET = "he/she/it's at the house"

yo'ól al yun í' = VEN-3-be.mass LOC-DET house DET = "It (mass or liquid) came to the house"

šitzín il qarub o' = 1-PFV-have.flexible DET dress DET = "I have the dress"

chašentetzín il qarub o' = SAP-1-AND-APPL-have.flexible DET dress DET = "I brought you the dress"

Maybe for permanent states, the orientation becomes/is the default? like "Today the President signed into law XYZ" and either signed, president or both are using the Sitting orientation.

This is one option! The truth is it's hard to find natural languages that don't tend towards neutralisation at all for permanent states, although a few that have overlap between their copular and locative verb(s) do seem to fall back on typical or assumed orientation. It's just the predominance of neutralisation that makes me think maybe I should at least partially neutralise for the persistent state case.

maybe... I-am your-father-am ?

I was thinking about using zero/apposition for identity statements, probably in predicate/complement first order, e.g.:

matet ci' = 2-father I

Although that gets confusing with predicates involving third persons because there's no overt genitive marker:

ratet uta' = 3-father he/she/it = his/her father OR he is his/her father

Perhaps a fronted topic structure is better:

uta' ai ratet = he TOP 3-father

[keenir]

I was thinking about using zero/apposition for identity statements, probably in predicate/complement first order, e.g.:

matet ci' = 2-father I

Although that gets confusing with predicates involving third persons because there's no overt genitive marker:

ratet uta' = 3-father he/she/it = his/her father OR he is his/her father

Perhaps a fronted topic structure is better:

uta' ai ratet = he TOP 3-father

hm...maybe... ra ci'tet = 3 I-father (with or without the uta')
My thought there was to fossilize the "i am (_) father" and either let it follow or prefix it with the 3 to tell the reader/listener "no, this isn't me talking".

[Jonlang]

It seems that for almost every sound change law an exception can be found - words which do not follow the expected evolution if we apply all sound changes which, as far as we know, should apply, resulting in (often) inexplicable developments of particular words. Do we have any reasons why this occurs? I know that very common words are more likely to have irregular developments but are there other means by which certain sound laws are simply ignored in isolated cases?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

The biggest one that comes to my mind is interdialectal borrowing, which can happen with both individual word-forms, and with grammatical forms. You can also have both forms inherited. This is, I find, a great way to expand vocabulary when a language is too contextually isolated to have much borrowing from other languages.