Zompist Bboard Again

keenir wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 12:52 pm"The children built-3P the house." (it was built for the children)
vs
"The children built-1P the house." (it was built by the children)

What do 3 and 1 mean in your glosses. I don't see how 3rd and 1st person could make that semantic distinction, so I'm assuming it's something else.

Imralu wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 6:38 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 12:52 pm"The children built-3P the house." (it was built for the children)
vs
"The children built-1P the house." (it was built by the children)

What do 3 and 1 mean in your glosses. I don't see how 3rd and 1st person could make that semantic distinction, so I'm assuming it's something else.

No, I did mean 3rd Person and 1st Person gain that distinction in such a statement eventually,......after some it starts as denoting someone who gives the order for it to happen (but does not personally lay bricks or dig the moat) of "The king built-3P the palace" then expands to "The king built-3P the homeless shelter" or "He built-3P the temple" (if he is the god the temple is built for)

keenir wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 7:15 pmNo, I did mean 3rd Person and 1st Person gain that distinction in such a statement eventually,......after some it starts as denoting someone who gives the order for it to happen (but does not personally lay bricks or dig the moat) of "The king built-3P the palace" then expands to "The king built-3P the homeless shelter" or "He built-3P the temple" (if he is the god the temple is built for)

So the descendent of the 1P affix indicates the subject performing the action (subject does sth) and the descendent of the 3P affix indicates an unnamed agent (subject has sth done)?

if this is the wrong thread for this, please put it where it belongs, if thats doable; sorry.

Imralu wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 7:23 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 7:15 pmNo, I did mean 3rd Person and 1st Person gain that distinction in such a statement eventually,......after some it starts as denoting someone who gives the order for it to happen (but does not personally lay bricks or dig the moat) of "The king built-3P the palace" then expands to "The king built-3P the homeless shelter" or "He built-3P the temple" (if he is the god the temple is built for)

So the descendent of the 1P affix indicates the subject performing the action (subject does sth) and the descendent of the 3P affix indicates an unnamed agent (subject has sth done)?

It can be, yes. I mean, if you say "The palace was built-3P" then sure.

My intent, at least, was that, outside of "the palace was built-3P", then such a descendent of the 3P affix would indicate that it has a named recipient or beneficiary (it is sth done for subject)

...the 1P affix can be more ambiguous (subject definately does sth -- though the sth may or may not be for the subject)

the king built-1P the palace.....the palace is definately for the king.

the king built-3P the palace.....the palace miiiiiiiiiight be for the king, or maybe the king had it built for his heir or his queen.

Elsewhere online I came across this: https://toaq.net/. I know we don’t discuss loglangs very much here, but this one looks particularly well-done and interesting. Don’t know enough formal semantics to properly assess it though.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 2:06 am Elsewhere online I came across this: https://toaq.net/. I know we don’t discuss loglangs very much here, but this one looks particularly well-done and interesting. Don’t know enough formal semantics to properly assess it though.

Any consonant other than /ŋ/ can appear syllable-initially.

COWARDS!

I find a true velar nasal (as opposed to a prenasalised stop) rather difficult to articulate word-initially.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 2:06 am Elsewhere online I came across this: https://toaq.net/. I know we don’t discuss loglangs very much here, but this one looks particularly well-done and interesting. Don’t know enough formal semantics to properly assess it though.

This website is beautifully designed. I hope someday I can make my grammars look so good.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 6:45 pmCOWARDS!

CONWARDS!

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:01 pmI find a true velar nasal (as opposed to a prenasalised stop) rather difficult to articulate word-initially.

I do not.


JAL

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:01 pm I find a true velar nasal (as opposed to a prenasalised stop) rather difficult to articulate word-initially.

Well, it's a matter of getting used to it.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 2:06 am Elsewhere online I came across this: https://toaq.net/. I know we don’t discuss loglangs very much here, but this one looks particularly well-done and interesting. Don’t know enough formal semantics to properly assess it though.

Toaq (pronounced [tʰoaŋ]) is a constructed human language in which every sentence translates unambiguously into logic notation.
[...]
A loglang is a language which unambiguously bidirectionally encodes predicate-argument-structures such that any Phonological Form corresponds to exactly one Logical Form (i.e. every valid utterance has exactly one meaning) and every Logical Form corresponds to at least one Phonological Form (i.e. every meaning can be encoded in at least one phonological string).

Press X to doubt.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zju wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 12:59 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 2:06 am Elsewhere online I came across this: https://toaq.net/. I know we don’t discuss loglangs very much here, but this one looks particularly well-done and interesting. Don’t know enough formal semantics to properly assess it though.

Toaq (pronounced [tʰoaŋ]) is a constructed human language in which every sentence translates unambiguously into logic notation.
[...]
A loglang is a language which unambiguously bidirectionally encodes predicate-argument-structures such that any Phonological Form corresponds to exactly one Logical Form (i.e. every valid utterance has exactly one meaning) and every Logical Form corresponds to at least one Phonological Form (i.e. every meaning can be encoded in at least one phonological string).

Press X to doubt.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Well, if you look a bit further, they actually worked out its formal semantics, so as long as their chosen formal theory is sufficiently good they’re actually not being too ridiculous there.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:01 pm I find a true velar nasal (as opposed to a prenasalised stop) rather difficult to articulate word-initially.

So wait, when you're impersonating a sexy cat, you say /ŋgʲã˩˥/ ?

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 7:32 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:01 pm I find a true velar nasal (as opposed to a prenasalised stop) rather difficult to articulate word-initially.

So wait, when you're impersonating a sexy cat...

I have never in my life attempted this.

/ŋgʲã˩˥/ the cat said "i feel like being sexy today"

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 2:06 am Elsewhere online I came across this: https://toaq.net/. I know we don’t discuss loglangs very much here, but this one looks particularly well-done and interesting. Don’t know enough formal semantics to properly assess it though.

Same -- I don't know enough about loglangs to decide how well it works; but apart from that it's very well done and I like it a lot.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 1:37 amand I like it a lot.

This always makes me think of this :D.


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 8:37 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 1:37 amand I like it a lot.

This always makes me think of this .


JAL

Yeah, I guess it would

I remember the Die Antwoord craze but I don't think I ever listened to them. I do remember the haircuts.

So, I don't know whether to go for /mw/ > /nw/ or > /mm/... I don't really like the sound of /mw/ and geminites are totally a thing in my L conlang. But, I have words where sometimes the /nw/ version sounds better or sometimes the /mm/ sounds better, but there's no phonetic justification for both in either case - one is hamma one is panwa... I could hand waive one instance of an irregular sound change because that happens in natlangs from time to time, but how else could I naturalistically have this duality? Or do I need to just pick one?

Jonlang wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:51 am So, I don't know whether to go for /mw/ > /nw/ or > /mm/... I don't really like the sound of /mw/ and geminites are totally a thing in my L conlang. But, I have words where sometimes the /nw/ version sounds better or sometimes the /mm/ sounds better, but there's no phonetic justification for both in either case - one is hamma one is panwa... I could hand waive one instance of an irregular sound change because that happens in natlangs from time to time, but how else could I naturalistically have this duality? Or do I need to just pick one?

You could say both existed as variations in dialect, but due to population mixing by some external force, both forms came into use by the "merged" dialect, and some words happened to settle into one form, and some into another...

At least, that's what I would do if I really wanted this.