I gather that you can have split-ergativity similar to that based on animacy based on things like definiteness and topicality as well. I have added definiteness as another dimension of split-ergativity to Rihalle Kaafi to make things more interesting than just split-ergativity based on animacy alone.bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:14 pmIt depends on the type of split-ergativity, but when the split is based on animacy, it’s certainly independent for each argument.Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:12 pm I think where we are getting confused is that by 'choice' I meant choice for the whole clause, not a choice for each argument independent of one another. What I was referring to is definitely split-ergativity if split-ergativity is independent for each argument (i.e. A can have a different alignment from O within the same clause).
(Of course for other kinds of splits that might be logically impossible, e.g. when it’s based on TAM.)
Conlang Random Thread
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Yaaludinuya siima d'at yiseka wohadetafa gaare.
Ennadinut'a gaare d'ate eetatadi siiman.
T'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa.
Ennadinut'a gaare d'ate eetatadi siiman.
T'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa.
Re: Conlang Random Thread
I consider the animacy hierarchy to incorporate definiteness too.Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:17 pmI gather that you can have split-ergativity similar to that based on animacy based on things like definitenessbradrn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:14 pmIt depends on the type of split-ergativity, but when the split is based on animacy, it’s certainly independent for each argument.Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:12 pm I think where we are getting confused is that by 'choice' I meant choice for the whole clause, not a choice for each argument independent of one another. What I was referring to is definitely split-ergativity if split-ergativity is independent for each argument (i.e. A can have a different alignment from O within the same clause).
(Of course for other kinds of splits that might be logically impossible, e.g. when it’s based on TAM.)
This is more complicated… a lot of so-called ‘ergative’ systems which incorporate topicality or focus should more accurately be called ‘marked nominative’, since ‘ergative’ marking can be extended to intransitive subjects.and topicality as well
(A peculiarity here is that there are some languages where the focus is obligatorily ergative/nominative, and others where the focus is never ergative/nominative, so unlike animacy we can’t really consider it a hierarchy.)
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Re: Conlang Random Thread
To avoid overt englishiness i'm thinking about making it so locative.demonstratives can be used for emphasis when combined verbal locatives but not prepositional locatives.
nan pikina wii aman enarim
NONS rain+VERB DEM.LOC.Spec be.in marsh
“It’s raining here in the marshes”
But not say nan pikina wii ka enarim
nan pikina wii aman enarim
NONS rain+VERB DEM.LOC.Spec be.in marsh
“It’s raining here in the marshes”
But not say nan pikina wii ka enarim
Re: Conlang Random Thread
I was thinking of this definition, "The grammatical case used to modify a noun", but I see what you mean.
Possibly.It's not word salad, it's just very bad reading comprehension of my previous paragraph.
Understood.They are all modifying/qualifying a noun and do not denote a syntactic role with respect to the verb.
Yes, you are absolutely right, I'm pretty emberassed right now. I was tired when I wrote my reply, should've know better to try replying. My apologies if I made your blood pressure go up.No, absolutely false. (...) Absolutely false (...) Again, absolutely false (...) This whole comment of yours should be embarrassing with the levels of poor reading comprehension and confidently incorrect going on.
JAL
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Currently mulling the possibilities for tone in my latest project, attempting to balance plausibility and conceptual elegance with aesthetic interest. The most promising and straightforward proposal distinguishes high and low tone with falling tone on long vowels and diphthongs. This works quite well conceptually and has plenty of natlang precedent (while also presenting few challenges for pronunciation or orthography). Nonetheless it seems disappointingly simple, especially given the otherwise quite elaborate phonology. I am debating whether to complicate things, perhaps by adding a mid tone, or settle for a simple yet reliable system.
Mureta ikan topaasenni.
Koomát terratomít juneeratu!
Remember, I was right about Die Antwoord | He/him
Koomát terratomít juneeratu!
Remember, I was right about Die Antwoord | He/him
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Note that you can have a simple tone inventory yet have interesting tonal phenomena on top of that. For instance, in Hausa (which has the same inventory of tones):malloc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 8:24 pm Currently mulling the possibilities for tone in my latest project, attempting to balance plausibility and conceptual elegance with aesthetic interest. The most promising and straightforward proposal distinguishes high and low tone with falling tone on long vowels and diphthongs. This works quite well conceptually and has plenty of natlang precedent (while also presenting few challenges for pronunciation or orthography). Nonetheless it seems disappointingly simple, especially given the otherwise quite elaborate phonology. I am debating whether to complicate things, perhaps by adding a mid tone, or settle for a simple yet reliable system.
- The low-toned definite article -ˋn / -ˋr̃ converts a preceding high tone to falling tone
- The ‘stabiliser’ particle has tone polarity, so its tone is always opposite to that of the preceding syllable; similarly, weak subject pronouns are polar to both preceding and following AM particles
- Falling tones can be simplified to high tones before the relativiser dà, and to low tones before definite demonstratives and the adverb ‘then’
- Similarly, would-be rising tones (resulting from e.g. vowel deletion) are simplified to a low tone after a high tone, and to a high tone otherwise.
- Some morphemes have no surface tone and thus get their tone from spreading processes.
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Re: Conlang Random Thread
In addition to everything Brad mentioned, one idea is to combine tone with phonation, e.g. add glottalization to closed syllables ending in voiceless plosives and give these their own tone (e.g. Middle Chinese), or add a breathy-voicing distinction on syllables which affects tone (e.g. various mainland Southeast Asian languages).malloc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 8:24 pm Currently mulling the possibilities for tone in my latest project, attempting to balance plausibility and conceptual elegance with aesthetic interest. The most promising and straightforward proposal distinguishes high and low tone with falling tone on long vowels and diphthongs. This works quite well conceptually and has plenty of natlang precedent (while also presenting few challenges for pronunciation or orthography). Nonetheless it seems disappointingly simple, especially given the otherwise quite elaborate phonology. I am debating whether to complicate things, perhaps by adding a mid tone, or settle for a simple yet reliable system.
Yaaludinuya siima d'at yiseka wohadetafa gaare.
Ennadinut'a gaare d'ate eetatadi siiman.
T'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa.
Ennadinut'a gaare d'ate eetatadi siiman.
T'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa.
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2023 3:47 pm
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Different topic, but Sodemeresh now has a word for bell: ruraruro. It is an onomatopoeia.
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2023 3:47 pm
Re: Conlang Random Thread
And with Kusibab (prayer) the lexicon has just hit 500 words!
Re: Conlang Random Thread
kudos and congratulations!AwfullyAmateur wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 12:15 pm And with Kusibab (prayer) the lexicon has just hit 500 words!
Re: Conlang Random Thread
What do you count as a word? Do you have derivational morphology, and if so, do you count derived words as well?AwfullyAmateur wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 12:15 pmAnd with Kusibab (prayer) the lexicon has just hit 500 words!
JAL
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2023 3:47 pm
Re: Conlang Random Thread
I count a word as a term referring to a specific thing, and yes, I count derived words. But only if they aren't verb inflections or suchlike.jal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 3:23 amWhat do you count as a word? Do you have derivational morphology, and if so, do you count derived words as well?AwfullyAmateur wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 12:15 pmAnd with Kusibab (prayer) the lexicon has just hit 500 words!
JAL
Re: Conlang Random Thread
I was asking because if you have, for example, a generic way to derive "the one who does it" from an active verb, and "the one who experiences it" etc., you could have a lot of repitition in your lexicon, and quite a lot of words. (My first conlang Kotane has a rich derivational morphology, so I tend not to list all those derived words.)AwfullyAmateur wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 11:01 amI count a word as a term referring to a specific thing, and yes, I count derived words. But only if they aren't verb inflections or suchlike.
JAL
Re: Conlang Random Thread
For dictionaries, I think that ‘lexeme’ is much clearer than ‘word’. Partly because the existence of a ‘word’ category is probably not a linguistic universal, and partly because there are things which obviously aren’t ‘words’ but which should be included in a dictionary nonetheless. This also clarifies the issue of ‘derived words’: they should be included in a dictionary whenever they form separate lexemes. (Of course this is still a matter of judgement.)
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices
(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
Re: Conlang Random Thread
Yeah, you're right, "lexeme" is better. In Kotane, the -e verbal nominalizer suffix often forms lexemes while the -ise suffix does not, even though they primarily both have a patient/direct object meaning. But defining what is, and what isn't, a lexeme isn't always easy.bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 3:15 amFor dictionaries, I think that ‘lexeme’ is much clearer than ‘word’. Partly because the existence of a ‘word’ category is probably not a linguistic universal, and partly because there are things which obviously aren’t ‘words’ but which should be included in a dictionary nonetheless. This also clarifies the issue of ‘derived words’: they should be included in a dictionary whenever they form separate lexemes. (Of course this is still a matter of judgement.)
JAL