philosophical languages don't importbinomial nomenclature, adapted to your language's phonology.
Have you considered simply letting go of some of your constraints? This is generally what I end up doing when I get myself into situations like these. Most of the time, I still find myself happy with the results, even if it wasn’t quite what I had imagined at first.Ahzoh wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 6:18 pm I have too many constraints... (morphological, prosodic, aesthetic, etc.)
It's become a struggle and a chore to figure out a solution to some specific problems that satisfies all or most of them, or, failing that, figure out which constraints I must keep and which I can dispose of.
Worse yet, I can't even really communicate my issues with other people so I can't really garner any help or inspiration from other people.
I fail to see the horror of that concept. If my philisophical conlang classifies otters and orcas as a marine subgroup of bears (warmblooded meateaters)...yes, its nice to know the Maori word for orca...but I don't have to use it, mouth sounds or otherwise.
well...how did you handle problems involving problematic constraints before now?
I don't know.
I do that and the alternatives always have something wrong with them. So it's really kicking the can down the road.(maybe make a few subvarietys of the conlang in question, and each one removes a different constraint, and see which you like more?)
oh. always? owch. sorry.
I understand and I've seen that...I just figured that, prior to this recent while, Ahzoh was handling difficulties in a way that perhaps had changed between then and now -- so basically I was curious if anything had changed. I have a bad feeling I'm not wording this the best way I could, but I can't think of a better way at the moment.
Well, the crux of my issue is that I can't decide if my person markers should be prefixes or suffixes. It is a significant matter as this drastically shapes the entire verb system and the aesthetics of the verb system. I take a lot of inspiration from Akkadian, Old Persian, Kassite, and the Hurro-Urartian languages (which Kassite might be a part of) and so the way they do things is what I look to to solve my problems.keenir wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 1:00 am I understand and I've seen that...I just figured that, prior to this recent while, Ahzoh was handling difficulties in a way that perhaps had changed between then and now -- so basically I was curious if anything had changed. I have a bad feeling I'm not wording this the best way I could, but I can't think of a better way at the moment.
well that seems simple enough: either remove all person suffixes and all person prefixes, or just change the suffixes to prefixes, or have both person suffixes and person prefixes.Ahzoh wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 4:31 pmWell, the crux of my issue is that I can't decide if my person markers should be prefixes or suffixes. It is a significant matter as this drastically shapes the entire verb system and the aesthetics of the verb system. I take a lot of inspiration from Akkadian, Old Persian, Kassite, and the Hurro-Urartian languages (which Kassite might be a part of) and so the way they do things is what I look to to solve my problems.keenir wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 1:00 am I understand and I've seen that...I just figured that, prior to this recent while, Ahzoh was handling difficulties in a way that perhaps had changed between then and now -- so basically I was curious if anything had changed. I have a bad feeling I'm not wording this the best way I could, but I can't think of a better way at the moment.
Still, the way my roots and principle parts are shaped are like that of Akkadian and not like the other ancient Mesopotamian languages, but Akkadian has person prefixes while mine has person suffixes, so the overall shape and structure of my verbs end up differently.
hmm...Like Akkadian nipparras (it/he was decided [durative]). Instead when I see a word in my conlang like irrabbatta "they who assigned to a post", I can't help but think of Italian raddoppiamento sintattico and words like all'arrabbiata. It's not the aesthetic I want.
I had to read that almost four times before I noticed there was any difference between them. I was about to ask what salience is, and what it has to do with gemination...now I can only remove the second half of that request: what is salience? (my brain says "its relevance" but i would like to be sure)Then there is salience. The distinction between G-stem paraḫ- and D-stem parraḫ- in my conlang does not feel much salient because there is only the addition of a lengthened consonant.
so...maybe give the stress a way to change position based on gemination?In Akkadian, the difference between i-prus and i-parras is much more salience because there is not only a change in consonant length but also a change in stress placement: í-prus (stress on the person prefixes) and i-párras (stress on the verb stem).
In my conlang, the stress never changes position because having CV-shaped person suffixes means that the raḫ- of paraḫ- and parraḫ- is always the stressed syllable. So the gemination doesn't feel as salient or marked.
Subject marking/indexing/agreement on the verb is a mandatory nonnegotiable feature. I've thought about polypersonal agreemment, but it doesn't mesh well with my stress rules and the verb structure. Also the object markers end up not being salient as well.
I had to read that almost four times before I noticed there was any difference between them. I was about to ask what salience is, and what it has to do with gemination...now I can only remove the second half of that request: what is salience? (my brain says "its relevance" but i would like to be sure)[/quote]Then there is salience. The distinction between G-stem paraḫ- and D-stem parraḫ- in my conlang does not feel much salient because there is only the addition of a lengthened consonant.
The stress rules, being based on syllable weight, do not allow for that, especially given the current possible morpheme templates:so...maybe give the stress a way to change position based on gemination?
Ahzoh wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 5:14 pm Subject marking/indexing/agreement on the verb is a mandatory nonnegotiable feature. I've thought about polypersonal agreemment, but it doesn't mesh well with my stress rules and the verb structure. Also the object markers end up not being salient as well.
It means markedness, prominence, or noticeability. Year ago when I decided that I would use gemination to derive adjectives from verbs like in Ethiopian languages, the geminated form was very noticeable because it was also tied with a change in stress compared to the verb.
The stress rules, being based on syllable weight, do not allow for that, especially given the current possible morpheme templates:
and this rule also applies to proper nouns, scientific names, measurements and all international words...[/quote]