Zompist Bboard Again

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:19 am**

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:53 pm
Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 2:11 pm Splitting /ə/ info [ə] and [a] sounds like a good idea to me; a system without any low vowels seems unstable IMO (despite the reconstructions of PIE with /e/ and /o/).
PIE /o/ was probably low.

And also PIE */e/. I'd say that *e was [æ], *a was [ɑ] and *o was [ɒ] at least in Early PIE, though they may have drifted towards more "canonical" qualities later.

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:40 am**

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:37 amSomething between South African and Australian.

Wouldn't that be an idiolect though?

JAL

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:02 am**

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:19 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:53 pm
Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 2:11 pm Splitting /ə/ info [ə] and [a] sounds like a good idea to me; a system without any low vowels seems unstable IMO (despite the reconstructions of PIE with /e/ and /o/).
PIE /o/ was probably low.
And also PIE */e/. I'd say that *e was [æ], *a was [ɑ] and *o was [ɒ] at least in Early PIE, though they may have drifted towards more "canonical" qualities later.

But that would make a vowel system with all low vowels, which is ridiculous.

jal wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:40 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:37 amSomething between South African and Australian.
Wouldn't that be an idiolect though?

Possibly, but I’m pretty sure others have it too.

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:15 am**

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:02 amPossibly, but I’m pretty sure others have it too.

Are there many people that are mid-SA and Australian? :)

JAL

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:16 am**

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:02 am
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:19 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:53 pm

PIE /o/ was probably low.
And also PIE */e/. I'd say that *e was [æ], *a was [ɑ] and *o was [ɒ] at least in Early PIE, though they may have drifted towards more "canonical" qualities later.
But that would make a vowel system with all low vowels, which is ridiculous.

Only if you insist on there being a system with syllabic non-vocalic /w/ and /j/ rather than treating them as the vowels they are, which IMHO is ridiculous. A system with [æ i ɑ ɒ u] seems perfectly sensible to me.

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 1:17 pm**

jal wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:15 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:02 amPossibly, but I’m pretty sure others have it too.
Are there many people that are mid-SA and Australian?

JAL

There's a fairly high number of people who moved, or whose parents or grandparents moved, from South Africa to Australia. Getting into the details of that might derail this thread, though.

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:40 pm**

And anyway those features brad mentioned are true of normal Australian English as well.

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:28 pm**

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:16 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:02 am
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:19 am

And also PIE */e/. I'd say that *e was [æ], *a was [ɑ] and *o was [ɒ] at least in Early PIE, though they may have drifted towards more "canonical" qualities later.
But that would make a vowel system with all low vowels, which is ridiculous.
Only if you insist on there being a system with syllabic non-vocalic /w/ and /j/ rather than treating them as the vowels they are, which IMHO is ridiculous. A system with [æ i ɑ ɒ u] seems perfectly sensible to me.

Yes. One would expect [æ] and [ɒ] to raise to something like [ɛ] and [ɔ], which is indeed what happened in most IE languages that did not merge [ɑ] and [ɒ] - two vowels that were dangerously close to each other and thus merged in about half of all branches.

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:54 pm**

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:28 pm[ɑ] and [ɒ] - two vowels that were dangerously close to each other

Didn't they have their cannonical values then? Because if so, it's just a rounding distinction? (And since in NAE [ɒ] > [ɑ], I would guess neither of them is unstable in and of itself?)

JAL

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:43 pm**

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:16 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:02 am
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:19 am

And also PIE */e/. I'd say that *e was [æ], *a was [ɑ] and *o was [ɒ] at least in Early PIE, though they may have drifted towards more "canonical" qualities later.
But that would make a vowel system with all low vowels, which is ridiculous.
Only if you insist on there being a system with syllabic non-vocalic /w/ and /j/ rather than treating them as the vowels they are, which IMHO is ridiculous. A system with [æ i ɑ ɒ u] seems perfectly sensible to me.

It’s attested from modern languages though, notably French and Kalam.

Darren wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:40 pm And anyway those features brad mentioned are true of normal Australian English as well.

Yes, this is what I meant.

Posted: **Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:47 pm**

I came up with a list of possible medial consonant clusters. I'm not entirely sure how they came into existence except either resyllabification of fortis consonants before other consonants or elision of weak vowels. Then the rather unstable resyllabified clusters quickly simplify into simpler clusters while leaving behind a tone on the following vowel.

Ú = high tone vowel
Ù = low tone vowel

Code: Select all

/mː.p mː.b mː.t mː.d mː.k mː.g/ > /m.mp m.mb m.mt m.md m.mk m.mg/ > /m.pÙ m.bÙ m.tÙ m.dÙ m.kÙ m.gÙ/
/nː.p nː.b nː.t nː.d nː.k nː.g/ > /n.np n.nb n.nt n.nd n.nk n.ng/ > /n.pÙ n.bÙ n.tÙ n.dÙ n.kÙ n.gÙ/
/ŋː.p ŋː.b ŋː.t ŋː.d ŋː.k ŋː.g/ > /ŋ.ŋp ŋ.ŋb ŋ.ŋt ŋ.ŋd ŋ.ŋk ŋ.ŋg/ > /ŋ.pÙ ŋ.bÙ ŋ.tÙ ŋ.dÙ ŋ.kÙ ŋ.gÙ/

Code: Select all

/pː.m bː.m tː.m dː.m kː.m gː.m/ > /p.pm b.bm t.tm d.dm k.km g.gm/ > /p.mÚ p.mÙ t.mÚ t.mÙ k.mÚ k.mÙ/
/pː.n bː.n tː.n dː.n kː.n gː.n/ > /p.pn b.bn t.tn d.dn k.kn g.gn/ > /p.nÚ p.nÙ t.nÚ t.nÙ k.nÚ k.nÙ/
/pː.ŋ bː.ŋ tː.ŋ dː.ŋ kː.ŋ gː.ŋ/ > /p.pŋ b.bŋ t.tŋ d.dŋ k.kŋ g.gŋ/ > /p.ŋÚ p.ŋÙ t.ŋÚ t.ŋÙ k.ŋÚ k.ŋÙ/
/pː.l bː.l tː.l dː.l kː.l gː.l/ > /p.pl b.bl t.tl d.dl k.kl g.gl/ > /p.lÚ p.lÙ t.lÚ t.lÙ k.lÚ k.lÙ/
/pː.r bː.r tː.r dː.r kː.r gː.r/ > /p.pr b.br t.tr d.dr k.kr g.gr/ > /p.rÚ p.rÙ t.rÚ t.rÙ k.rÚ k.rÙ/

Code: Select all

/tː.p tː.b dː.b/                > /t.tp t.tb d.db/                > /t.pÚ t.bÚ t.bÙ/
/pː.t pː.d bː.d kː.t kː.d gː.d/ > /p.pt p.pd b.bd k.kt k.kd g.gd/ > /p.tÚ p.dÚ p.dÙ k.tÚ k.dÚ k.dÙ/
/tː.k tː.g dː.g/                > /t.tk t.tg d.dg/                > /t.kÚ t.gÚ t.gÙ/

Code: Select all

/pː.s bː.s tː.s dː.s kː.s gː.s/ > /p.ps b.bs t.ts d.ds k.ks g.gs/ > /p.pʰÚ p.pʰÙ t.tʰÚ t.tʰÙ k.kʰÚ k.kʰÙ/
/pː.x bː.x tː.x dː.x kː.x gː.x/ > /p.px b.bx t.tx d.dx k.kx g.gx/ > /p.pʰÚ p.pʰÙ t.tʰÚ t.tʰÙ k.kʰÚ k.kʰÙ/

Code: Select all

/sː.m xː.m/                     > /s.sm x.xm/                     > /s.smÙ x.xmÙ/
/sː.n xː.n/                     > /s.sn x.xn/                     > /s.snÙ x.xnÙ/
/sː.ŋ xː.ŋ/                     > /s.sŋ x.xŋ/                     > /s.sŋÙ x.xŋÙ/ 
/sː.l xː.l/                     > /s.sl x.xl/                     > /s.slÙ x.xlÙ/ 
/sː.r xː.r/                     > /s.sr x.xr/                     > /s.srÙ x.xrÙ/

Code: Select all

/sː.p sː.b xː.p xː.b/           > /s.sp s.sb x.xp x.xb/           > /s.spÚ s.spÙ x.xpÚ x.xpÙ/
/sː.t sː.d xː.t xː.d/           > /s.st s.sd x.xt x.xd/           > /s.stÚ s.stÙ x.xtÚ x.xtÙ/
/sː.k sː.g xː.k xː.g/           > /s.sk s.sg x.xk x.xg/           > /s.skÚ s.skÙ x.xkÚ x.xkÙ/

I also have to decide on what would be the most marked tone. I think it would be the high tone. I also have to decide whether obstruents should be considered as tone-bearing units or not, as that determines if the syllable should have a level tone or a contour tone.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:02 am**

jal wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:54 pm
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:28 pm[ɑ] and [ɒ] - two vowels that were dangerously close to each other
Didn't they have their cannonical values then? Because if so, it's just a rounding distinction? (And since in NAE [ɒ] > [ɑ], I would guess neither of them is unstable in and of itself?)

Well, it's anyone's guess. There are reasons to assume that the three non-high vowels of PIE emerged from an earlier */a/ by ablaut and laryngeal colouring, which makes the assumption that they were that open reasonable.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:28 pm**

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:43 pm
Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:16 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:02 am

But that would make a vowel system with all low vowels, which is ridiculous.
Only if you insist on there being a system with syllabic non-vocalic /w/ and /j/ rather than treating them as the vowels they are, which IMHO is ridiculous. A system with [æ i ɑ ɒ u] seems perfectly sensible to me.
It’s attested from modern languages though, notably French and Kalam.

Since when does French lack normal, vocalic /i u/?

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:55 pm**

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:28 pm
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:43 pm
Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:16 am

Only if you insist on there being a system with syllabic non-vocalic /w/ and /j/ rather than treating them as the vowels they are, which IMHO is ridiculous. A system with [æ i ɑ ɒ u] seems perfectly sensible to me.
It’s attested from modern languages though, notably French and Kalam.
Since when does French lack normal, vocalic /i u/?

Hmm… maybe I got confused and it’s the other way round, with [j ɥ w] being allophones of /i y u/ rather than the reverse. Either way, it doesn’t have much of a distinction between semivowels and vowels.

(Kalam is the same, but /j w/ are analysed as primary.)

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:09 pm**

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:55 pm Hmm… maybe I got confused and it’s the other way round, with [j ɥ w] being allophones of /i y u/ rather than the reverse. Either way, it doesn’t have much of a distinction between semivowels and vowels.

Well this is much more typical I'd say.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:57 pm**

There's ways of analysing [j ɥ w] as allophonic in French, but you have to do shady things to explain minimal pairs like pays /pɛi/ "country" vs. paye /pɛj/ "paycheque", or clouassions /kluasjɔ̃/ "(that we) were fucking" vs. cloison /klwazɔ̃/ "partition".

Posted: **Sun Feb 11, 2024 4:14 am**

Ossmalic has a rule where Rising and Falling tones influence level tones such that:

HR > LR
LF > HF

RL > RH
FH > FL

RR > RH
FF > FL
And the change always moves left to right

Getting it to work like this in SCA has heen difficult but achievable. However I experience immense difficulty in getting the code to work when there's a situation like RHR or FLF where the result should he RHH and FLL. It is difficult to tell it to only turn rising syllables into high ones after a high tone only if said high tone is preceded by another rising tone. And likewise for falling tones with regards to low tones.

I've used the wildcard and it works perfectly...except it also causes a change in syllables like RHLR turning it into RHLH

My syllables are also complex that I can't just do something like R/H/CR.CH.C_
The syllable can be maximally CCCVC and there's the stress mark, so I'd have to type up like 70+ lines, which is way too much for such a simple rule.

Posted: **Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:00 am**

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 4:14 am Ossmalic has a rule where Rising and Falling tones influence level tones such that:

HR > LR
LF > HF

RL > RH
FH > FL

RR > RH
FF > FL
And the change always moves left to right

Getting it to work like this in SCA has heen difficult but achievable. However I experience immense difficulty in getting the code to work when there's a situation like RHR or FLF where the result should he RHH and FLL. It is difficult to tell it to only turn rising syllables into high ones after a high tone only if said high tone is preceded by another rising tone. And likewise for falling tones with regards to low tones.

I don’t understand; how would these rules convert RHR into RHH?

Posted: **Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:03 am**

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:00 am
Ahzoh wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 4:14 am Ossmalic has a rule where Rising and Falling tones influence level tones such that:

HR > LR
LF > HF

RL > RH
FH > FL

RR > RH
FF > FL
And the change always moves left to right

Getting it to work like this in SCA has heen difficult but achievable. However I experience immense difficulty in getting the code to work when there's a situation like RHR or FLF where the result should he RHH and FLL. It is difficult to tell it to only turn rising syllables into high ones after a high tone only if said high tone is preceded by another rising tone. And likewise for falling tones with regards to low tones.
I don’t understand; how would these rules convert RHR into RHH?

Because RR or RL > RH rule is first, it takes procedural precedence over HR > LR, but now there's an HR that's illegal, but it can't channge to LR because of preceding R, so well that's the only time HR become HH. And H isn't allowed to turn into F between two Rs.

Posted: **Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:22 am**

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:03 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:00 am I don’t understand; how would these rules convert RHR into RHH?
Because RR or RL > RH rule is first, it takes procedural precedence over HR > LR, but now there's an HR that's illegal, but it can't channge to LR because of preceding R, so well that's the only time HR become HH. And H isn't allowed to turn into F between two Rs.

I’m still confused… there’s no RR in RHR.

But also, allow me to make an observation here. I feel that you’re not thinking in terms of sound changes here, but rather in terms of constraints: ‘RR is disallowed’, ‘RFR is disallowed’, and so on. With that mindset, you might find it more rewarding to phrase your tone system in terms of Optimality Theory, though of course you’d still need to figure out an equivalent set of sound changes in order to use an SCA.

Zompist Bboard Again

Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread

Re: Conlang Random Thread