Conlang Random Thread

[Ahzoh]

I had an idea that certain consonants could influence a vowel even if it's not directly adjacent to the vowel and this would result in the various ablaut grades in Vrkhazhian:

For example, you'd have paṭaṣ- (< puṭaṣ-) in one series of inflections but -pṭuṣ- in another series of inflections, with /a/ turning into /u/ under the influence of the bilabial. Though I don't know if velars would be i-mutating or neutral. Same with coronals. I feel like coronals (alveolar) should be neutral while back in the past there were postalveolars which were i-mutating.

However, these sorts of changes may be resisted to a degree if the vowel differences are grammatically important.

[Travis B.]

I had an idea that certain consonants could influence a vowel even if it's not directly adjacent to the vowel and this would result in the various ablaut grades in Vrkhazhian:

For example, you'd have paṭaṣ- (< puṭaṣ-) in one series of inflections but -pṭuṣ- in another series of inflections, with /a/ turning into /u/ under the influence of the bilabial. Though I don't know if velars would be i-mutating or neutral. Same with coronals. I feel like coronals (alveolar) should be neutral while back in the past there were postalveolars which were i-mutating.

However, these sorts of changes may be resisted to a degree if the vowel differences are grammatically important.

Just for the record, at times alveolar consonants are i-mutating in addition to postalveolar consonants, e.g. in the English right here, where e.g. /u/ > [y] after an alveolar, postalveolar, or palatal consonant (except before /l/ where no fronting occurs, or before a velar other than /l/, where then /u/ > [yu] instead).

As for velar consonants, I would make them neutral or backing myself, not i-mutating. E.g. /l/, which is velar in the dialect here, backs/prevents fronting of vowels that precede it.

[Ahzoh]

I had an idea that certain consonants could influence a vowel even if it's not directly adjacent to the vowel and this would result in the various ablaut grades in Vrkhazhian:

For example, you'd have paṭaṣ- (< puṭaṣ-) in one series of inflections but -pṭuṣ- in another series of inflections, with /a/ turning into /u/ under the influence of the bilabial. Though I don't know if velars would be i-mutating or neutral. Same with coronals. I feel like coronals (alveolar) should be neutral while back in the past there were postalveolars which were i-mutating.

However, these sorts of changes may be resisted to a degree if the vowel differences are grammatically important.

Just for the record, at times alveolar consonants are i-mutating in addition to postalveolar consonants, e.g. in the English right here, where e.g. /u/ > [y] after an alveolar, postalveolar, or palatal consonant (except before /l/ where no fronting occurs, or before a velar other than /l/, where then /u/ > [yu] instead).

As for velar consonants, I would make them neutral or backing myself, not i-mutating. E.g. /l/, which is velar in the dialect here, backs/prevents fronting of vowels that precede it.

Well, alveolars are common so I don't want a majority of the vowels mutating. In fact, i sort of want to create a weak coronal-peripheral phonological behaviour contrast.

I don't know, I'm just trying to come up with semi-predictable reasons for the language's various ablaut alternations.

I have:

Transitive alternations (nonfuture > future):
a > a
a > u
a > i
Dynamic intransitive alternations (nonfuture > future):
u > a
u > u
Stative intransitive alternations (nonfuture > future):
i > a
i > i

Like I want them to be a little random, opaque, unpredictable but I don't want them to be too random, opaque, and unpredictable. At the same time I don't want them to be too predictable and transparent. It's really a fine line.

I do not want every instance of a root containing a bilabial to be of the a-u or u-u pattern nor do I want every instance of a root containing coronals to be of the a-i or i-i pattern. At the same time paṭaṣ- vs -pṭuṣ- feels right to me where paṭaṣ- vs -pṭiṣ- does not. Although, funnily enough, paraḫ- vs -priḫ- feels right to me but paraḫ- vs -pruḫ- does not, even though it has a /p/ like the other example. A lot of it is just vibes, but I do not like the uncertainty of vibes.

[bradrn]

Well, alveolars are common so I don't want a majority of the vowels mutating. In fact, i sort of want to create a weak coronal-peripheral phonological behaviour contrast.

One possibility is the phenomenon called ‘prosodies’ in Chadic languages. Basically, these are word-level processes of palatalisation or labialisation, which have effects on both vowels and consonants within the word. The most extreme case is probably Moloko, which has one underlying vowel but ten surface vowels, which depend on whether the vowel is affected by labialisation, palatalisation, or is adjacent to /j/ or /w/. I can easily imagine a system like this giving rise to ablaut alternations which co-vary with consonants.

Another possibility is, quite simply, plain old vowel syncope, as happened in Germanic languages or northern Vanuatuan languages. Triconsonantal systems come from syncope anyway, so there should be some way to fit this in fairly easily.

[Ahzoh]

Well, alveolars are common so I don't want a majority of the vowels mutating. In fact, i sort of want to create a weak coronal-peripheral phonological behaviour contrast.

One possibility is the phenomenon called ‘prosodies’ in Chadic languages. Basically, these are word-level processes of palatalisation or labialisation, which have effects on both vowels and consonants within the word. The most extreme case is probably Moloko, which has one underlying vowel but ten surface vowels, which depend on whether the vowel is affected by labialisation, palatalisation, or is adjacent to /j/ or /w/. I can easily imagine a system like this giving rise to ablaut alternations which co-vary with consonants.

Another possibility is, quite simply, plain old vowel syncope, as happened in Germanic languages or northern Vanuatuan languages. Triconsonantal systems come from syncope anyway, so there should be some way to fit this in fairly easily.

I don't want Chaha. Nor do I want word-level secondary-articulation harmony.

Dissimilation is a possibility where, for example, bilabials disprefer /u/ and turn it into some other vowel, whereas adjacent consonants are subtly labialised with in turn labializes, and eventually backs, vowels.

[AwfullyAmateur]

Just to confirm, macrons signify long vowels, so "cāk" would be pronounce the same as cake, right? I'm a little hesitant to throw macrons around before checking.

[Ahzoh]

Just to confirm, macrons signify long vowels, so "cāk" would be pronounce the same as cake, right? I'm a little hesitant to throw macrons around before checking.

Macrons can signify long vowels, yes. The <a> is cake is an /ei/, not /a:/.

[AwfullyAmateur]

Thanks.

[Richard W]

Just to confirm, macrons signify long vowels, so "cāk" would be pronounce the same as cake, right?

Macrons can signify long vowels, yes. The <a> is cake is an /ei/, not /a:/.

But length marks can persist despite vast changes in phonology, especially if an old system of length contrasts is relevant for morphology, as still for English. Remember, though, that in IPA, the macron came to represent mid tone with the triangular colon representing length. The triangular colon is, though, pretty rare (non-existent?) in orthographies and transliterations.

[Ahzoh]

Just to confirm, macrons signify long vowels, so "cāk" would be pronounce the same as cake, right?

Macrons can signify long vowels, yes. The <a> is cake is an /ei/, not /a:/.

But length marks can persist despite vast changes in phonology, especially if an old system of length contrasts is relevant for morphology, as still for English. Remember, though, that in IPA, the macron came to represent mid tone with the triangular colon representing length. The triangular colon is, though, pretty rare (non-existent?) in orthographies and transliterations.

They want actual length though, not historical length

[Richard W]

One oddity in length marking systems is the old 'Precise System' for simultaneously transliterating and transcribing Thai. (I'm not sure that it was ever completely worked out ) It used the 26-letter Roman alphabet plus Vietnamese horned letters plus diacritics, with quality-distinguishing diacritics below the vowel, which were kept for the 'general system', and had length- and tone-marking above the vowel. The oddity was that instead of using macrons to mark long vowels, it used breves to mark short vowels. This worked surprisingly well. I'm not sure why; possibly because vowels in 'open' syllables are mostly long. The 'open' syllables with short vowels almost all end in glottal stops; glottal stops are not written in the systems.

[Ares Land]

We were talking science-fiction over in Ephemera and coincidentally my conworld is undergoing a massive overhaul.

The old idea was that there was intermittent connection between Earth and that conworld from prehistoric times on. That was an intriguing idea, but I feel it doesn't work that well, narratively. (I have several ideas in mind, revolving around first contact, and the connection tended to distract from the main themes.)
So the 'main' species, which is used to be related to human, should now be 'real' aliens. The one big constraint is that they should have human-like voice tracts (reworking the languages is okay and even fun but I don't want to redo them entirely.)

[bradrn]

The old idea was that there was intermittent connection between Earth and that conworld from prehistoric times on. That was an intriguing idea, but I feel it doesn't work that well, narratively. (I have several ideas in mind, revolving around first contact, and the connection tended to distract from the main themes.)

I’m still contemplating this idea for my own conworld. What made you reconsider?

(When you first presented it, I think I complained about you taking my idea before I could even use it. But on reflection, there’s probably not that many ways to plausibly justify an Earth-like conworld with humans…)

[jal]

(When you first presented it, I think I complained about you taking my idea before I could even use it. But on reflection, there’s probably not that many ways to plausibly justify an Earth-like conworld with humans…)

Well, your typical fantasy worlds are Earth-like conworlds, so it depends on what level of "plausibility" you need. If you don't care about the when, you could think of some terraformed planet, but a 100,000 years in the future after the collapse of the interstellar society, or such. But well, who really cares, in the end, as long as you have a nice world to put your conlangs in :).


JAL

[Ares Land]

I’m still contemplating this idea for my own conworld. What made you reconsider?

It didn't work that well for the short story/novel ideas I had in mind. They're, if not hard SF, at least relatively realistic science fiction, so the idea implies wormhole-building precursors... who distract from the main story themes I had in mind.

And the story works just as well, if not better, with alien aliens, so to speak.

What I'd like to write is akin to the kind of SF Le Guin wrote (to the extent that my more modest abilities allow...) and it occured to me that the Hainish in the Hainish Cycle weren't that necessary... the novels would've worked just as well without them.

[bradrn]

I’m still contemplating this idea for my own conworld. What made you reconsider?

It didn't work that well for the short story/novel ideas I had in mind. They're, if not hard SF, at least relatively realistic science fiction, so the idea implies wormhole-building precursors... who distract from the main story themes I had in mind.

Hmm, OK.

And the story works just as well, if not better, with alien aliens, so to speak.

Your Bugs were pretty alien, as I recall.

(By the way, whatever did happen to the Bugs?)

What I'd like to write is akin to the kind of SF Le Guin wrote (to the extent that my more modest abilities allow...) and it occured to me that the Hainish in the Hainish Cycle weren't that necessary... the novels would've worked just as well without them.

The Hainish solve what is, to me, a very important problem: how did humans get onto the conworld? You either need precursor humanoids (like the Hainish), a far-future setting (like jal suggested), or wormholes. (Almea handwaves it away with ‘convergent evolution’, which I find unsatisfying. And it has magical wormholes anyway.)

[Ares Land]

Your Bugs were pretty alien, as I recall.

(By the way, whatever did happen to the Bugs?)

I'm still mostly happy with what I wrote about the Bugs back in the day. One thing that's still to consider is whether to place them on the same planet as the rest of my conworlding (which would be convenient for other reasons)

What I'd like to write is akin to the kind of SF Le Guin wrote (to the extent that my more modest abilities allow...) and it occured to me that the Hainish in the Hainish Cycle weren't that necessary... the novels would've worked just as well without them.

The Hainish solve what is, to me, a very important problem: how did humans get onto the conworld? You either need precursor humanoids (like the Hainish), a far-future setting (like jal suggested), or wormholes. (Almea handwaves it away with ‘convergent evolution’, which I find unsatisfying. And it has magical wormholes anyway.)
[/quote]

Yep. The compromise I'm willing to go with is, so to speak, moderately humanlike aliens. As in bipedal / similar social structure / humanoid in the widest sense of the word. Which I think is not unrealistic. Actually, the more I think about it, the more Starfish Aliens (as they say on TV Tropes) feel unsatisfying.

[jal]

Yep. The compromise I'm willing to go with is, so to speak, moderately humanlike aliens. As in bipedal / similar social structure / humanoid in the widest sense of the word. Which I think is not unrealistic. Actually, the more I think about it, the more Starfish Aliens (as they say on TV Tropes) feel unsatisfying.

Humans are an oddity, us being bipedal and having an erect posture. So at least you'd need some evolutionary explanation for "moderately humanlike aliens". I still haven't fully worked-out "my" conaliens, but they too are humanoid.


JAL

[Lērisama]

(Almea handwaves it away with ‘convergent evolution’, which I find unsatisfying. And it has magical wormholes anyway.)

I think the current handwave is that Almea is the closest otherworld to Earth, and so selected by the wormholes, partly because the evolution converged to such a degree, which is still handwavey, but differently, although I'm sure there are people¹ who could correct/add to this.

¹ Definitely Zompist, maybe others

[Ares Land]

Yep. The compromise I'm willing to go with is, so to speak, moderately humanlike aliens. As in bipedal / similar social structure / humanoid in the widest sense of the word. Which I think is not unrealistic. Actually, the more I think about it, the more Starfish Aliens (as they say on TV Tropes) feel unsatisfying.

Humans are an oddity, us being bipedal and having an erect posture. So at least you'd need some evolutionary explanation for "moderately humanlike aliens". I still haven't fully worked-out "my" conaliens, but they too are humanoid.


JAL

Yep (and there I need to figure something out) but bipedality makes sense for a technological species: you need to free the hands.
Birds are bipedal though (but it's an idea I already used!)