Conlang Random Thread

[rotting bones]

Does anyone have any ideas on an angle of attack for improving my Neo-Arcadian (Laulai) grammar before I work myself up to edit it again?

[jal]

Does anyone have any ideas on an angle of attack for improving my Neo-Arcadian (Laulai) grammar before I work myself up to edit it again?

You mean the description of its grammar? Because I'm lazy and don't want to page back, where is it currently?


JAL

[rotting bones]

Does anyone have any ideas on an angle of attack for improving my Neo-Arcadian (Laulai) grammar before I work myself up to edit it again?

You mean the description of its grammar? Because I'm lazy and don't want to page back, where is it currently?


JAL

Yes: https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... ilization/

I'm worried it's currently not in a fit state to be read.

[Lērisama]

Does anyone have any ideas on an angle of attack for improving my Neo-Arcadian (Laulai) grammar before I work myself up to edit it again?

It feels like it would be more readible as two documents – the culture/history one and the language one, with the latter only having a short introduction to the former and redirecting to it for detail. As it is, you start the grammar with a long section of not grammar, and I ran out of energy on my first reading and had to go back halfway through the description. That said, it's not a bad grammar, and a little editing would probably go a long way.

[rotting bones]

Does anyone have any ideas on an angle of attack for improving my Neo-Arcadian (Laulai) grammar before I work myself up to edit it again?

It feels like it would be more readible as two documents – the culture/history one and the language one, with the latter only having a short introduction to the former and redirecting to it for detail. As it is, you start the grammar with a long section of not grammar, and I ran out of energy on my first reading and had to go back halfway through the description. That said, it's not a bad grammar, and a little editing would probably go a long way.

Thanks, I'll try it. I was originally hoping the drama of the setting will motivate engagement with the grammar, which is also fairly in-depth. There are over a thousand words in the lexicon. The morphology has fossilized forms, less popular forms, more popular forms, corrupt forms, forms that are entering the standard speech and points of dialectal differences. I once had an exchange with zompist about how other parts of the grammar change into and out of morphology, which motivated working this out in so much detail.

Like Coptic, Greek has entered the morphology, but in a more creolized way, twisted by historical Pythagorean doctrines. There are regular Greek loans, irregular Greek loans, a smaller number of Italic/Classical Latin/Late Latin loans and at least one possibly Germanic loan.

I was hoping to recreate my magical experience of learning Coptic after having studied Greek, all the while being situated in an anime-adjacent setting. I'm both a fan of anime and classical philology. I hadn't read Neverness when I came up with the older form of the language, but aspects of the story are close. I haven't seen a conlang combine those worlds with historical philosophy and UFO lore before.

The problem is, the setting actually added to the explosion of lists. I wish I could figure out how to communicate what excites me about the setting. There might not be a way except by posting stories.

[jal]

I find grammars written from the perspective of the language's speakers quite difficult to read. Personally I'd like to see a convential grammatical description (using conventianal terms), perhaps with added asides in case some feature ties in with diachorinics or mythology. So to me this grammar is borderline illegible, and doesn't give me a clear overview of the language.


JAL

[rotting bones]

I find grammars written from the perspective of the language's speakers quite difficult to read. Personally I'd like to see a convential grammatical description (using conventianal terms), perhaps with added asides in case some feature ties in with diachorinics or mythology. So to me this grammar is borderline illegible, and doesn't give me a clear overview of the language.


JAL

Thanks. I might have done a bad job of explaining that it's a mixed language consisting of an ergative substrate with an accusative Greek overlay. The Greek style sounds prestigious, but it's not how ordinary people speak. For example, I said "archic" case because it's traditionally the patient, but nowadays it's the agent if the Greek accusative is used. The grammar is genuinely ambiguous. Natively, whatever happens to take this case is called the "source", a grammatically meaningless term. There are benefits to using Greek styles for some sentence types.

I will add clarifications about this. A full rewrite may take a while.

[rotting bones]

I only added this so far:

When Laulai was in more of a mixed state, a number of prestigious texts were composed that used the archic case as the agent and the accusative as the patient. The accusative overlay style sounds fancy, analogous to English thoroughly infused with French, but ordinary people never speak this way. Natively, any noun in the archic case is called the “source”, a grammatically meaningless term.

[Richard W]

I only added this so far:

Natively, any noun in the archic case is called the “source”, a grammatically meaningless term.

'Grammatically' or 'semantically'? I haven't studied your writing, but what you just said makes me think of the case grammar examples where the subject of the verb to wash can have many different semantic rôles.

[Ahzoh]

A phonemic inventory for an ancestor of the ancestor of Vrkhazhian:
/m n/ <m n >
/pʰ tʰ t͡sʰ t͡ɬʰ t͡ʃʰ kʰ kʷʰ qʰ qʷʰ ʔ/ <p t c ĉ č k kʷ ḵ ḵʷ ʔ>
/pʼ tʼ t͡sʼ t͡ɬʼ t͡ʃʼ kʼ kʷʼ qʼ qʷʼ/ <ṗ ṭ c̣ ĉ̣ č̣ ḳ ḳʷ ḵ̣ ḵ̣ʷ>
/b d d͡z d͡ɮ d͡ʒ g gʷ ɢ ɢʷ/ <b d ʒ ʒ̂ ǯ g gʷ ḡ ḡʷ>
/s ɬ ʃ χ χʷ h/ <s ŝ š ḫ ḫʷ h>
/w r l j/ <w r l y >

Either a direct follow-up stage or alternative phonology:
/m n ŋ/ <m n ŋ >
/pʰ tʰ t͡sʰ t͡ɬʰ t͡ʃʰ kʰ kʷʰ ʔ ʔʷ/ <p t c ĉ č k kʷ ʔ ʔʷ>
/pʼ tʼ t͡sʼ t͡ɬʼ t͡ʃʼ kʼ kʷʼ/ <ṗ ṭ c̣ ĉ̣ č̣ ḳ ḳʷ>
/b d d͡z d͡ɮ d͡ʒ g gʷ/ <b d ʒ ʒ̂ ǯ g gʷ>
/s ɬ ʃ x xʷ ħ ħʷ/ <s ŝ š ḫ ḫʷ ḥ ḥʷ>
/w r l j ʕ ʕʷ/ <w r l y ʕ ʕʷ>

The purpose of the gutturals is to become /e e:/ in Vrkhazhian, just as in Akkadian. However, the change in Akkadian makes zero sense, none of consonants that elide (*ʔ, *h, *ʕ, *ġ, *ḥ) in that language are the type of consonant to raise and front /a/ to /e/ and yet they do.

However, I have read a paper that pharyngeals can cause vowels to centralize, and it isn't too much of a stretch for centralized vowels to migrate forward. Thus in this language the unrounded series will be "front-coloring" while the rounded series are "back(-rounded) coloring". Both types have the effect of lowering vowels so even /i u/ will eventually become either /e/ or /ɑ~ɒ/

[rotting bones]

'Grammatically' or 'semantically'? I haven't studied your writing, but what you just said makes me think of the case grammar examples where the subject of the verb to wash can have many different semantic rôles.

Thanks.

Should I say "semantically"? In-world, there are libraries of interpretation about what it means. In brief, they think the source is an object in the world of ideas that emanates the action through the chain of links that forms the sentence, the action being the verb at the end. Agenthood and patienthood are secondary. They usually think the patient is primary because it’s the furthest removed from activity.

“Linguistically” doesn’t sound right either. I don’t know. I have zero formal education in linguistics.

[bradrn]

I think the term you’re looking for is ‘metalinguistic’.

[rotting bones]

I think the term you’re looking for is ‘metalinguistic’.

Thanks, I have updated the page.

[Travis B.]

The purpose of the gutturals is to become /e e:/ in Vrkhazhian, just as in Akkadian. However, the change in Akkadian makes zero sense, none of consonants that elide (*ʔ, *h, *ʕ, *ġ, *ḥ) in that language are the type of consonant to raise and front /a/ to /e/ and yet they do.

However, I have read a paper that pharyngeals can cause vowels to centralize, and it isn't too much of a stretch for centralized vowels to migrate forward. Thus in this language the unrounded series will be "front-coloring" while the rounded series are "back(-rounded) coloring". Both types have the effect of lowering vowels so even /i u/ will eventually become either /e/ or /ɑ~ɒ/

I have read that pharyngeals proper (as opposed to pharyngealized consonants) indeed often pull vowels towards [æ] whereas "pharyngealized" consonants (which are often actually uvularized or velarized) often pull vowels towards [ɑ] as do uvular consonants.

[Ahzoh]

ancestralphones.png (62.42 KiB) Viewed 10000 times

Now that I've sorted out the ancestral phoneme inventory, I plan on going back to forming my triconsonantal root system from scratch.

I have am planning on having a series of derivational affixes from which to extend short roots to fit the new system. I want to implement grammatical reduplication, but it always produces undesirable results.

Proposed affixes will be:

• a causative/transtivizer
• an andative
• a venitive
• a finitive (makes action telic/have endpoint)
• a nonfinitive (makes action atelic)
• a focative (scope of action is more precise or focused)
• a diffusive (action has broader scope or focus, or action is uneven or irregular in unfolding)
• an intensive of manner
• an intensive of effect
• a morpheme that reverses the action (stretch > squeeze)
• a morpheme that indicates a complementary action (throw > catch) or the result of action (grow, spread > be wide)
• a "chaotizer" (break > shatter, fall > fall apart)
• a morpheme that makes stative verbs durative while dynamic verbs are iterative

I just have to come up with affixes for these, and I am not sure if there should be one affix for each type or multiples affixes for each type.

[rotting bones]

Like Coptic, Greek has entered the morphology, but in a more creolized way, twisted by historical Pythagorean doctrines.

It occurs to me that this is misleading as written. Unlike in Laulai, Greek has not altered the core morphology of Coptic. It has loaned prepositions and conjunctions, changed the syntax and triggered morphosyntactic changes surrounding the use of Greek borrowings. Coptic has a very large number of Greek loanwords though.

[Leilis]

Lately I've been working on moving Heláin onto paper: I'm planning to keep printouts of everything in a binder, and handwrite corrections/additions until a section's getting hard to use, then update on the computer and print again. Right now I'm trying to deal with a messy backlog of vocab-related agenda before I print the lexicon. I found no fewer than three reminders to myself to work out the distinction between the verbs tag and elf. Here are the lexicon entries (deleting a word I'm not sure works):

tag {?PH *s-takʰa} v be arranged, be set in order; signify, mean, symbolise; be fated; inf arrangement; system; meaning; fate; act administrator. tegien f order. teigoi m rubric, chart. tegéid f part of a system, class; method; declension or conjugation; musical mode, key; cobitegéid {cobi ‘belly’} f digestive system, cusentegéid {cusen ‘heart’} f circulatory system. tanga m sign, symbol, token; curitanga {curi ‘market’} f logograph, pictographic label. | antag v (of a fyrd or army) be arranged for battle; inf battle-lines; battle; act warlord’s commander; ivantegir act commander over an army from more than one fyrdland. antegéin f battlefield. artag v be done out of order or against a system; (music) be sung out of key. intag v be rightly ordered. brenatag {bren ‘hand’ < bar} v be gestured at with the hand, be pointed at.

elfa {?PH *ælpʰa; cf. ilva} f kind, sort, class, family; kinship, relationship. inelfa f ratio; teiginelfa f the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its radius (two pi or tau). aiyelfa {aia} f language, tongue. incireilfa {incir ‘be inflected’ < cir} f a particular declension or conjugation. teimbeteilfa {teimbot ‘dance’} f a metrical segment of the form long-short-long-short. | elf v be related (to com. person or thing); be sorted, classified (with com. persons or things). corelf v (grammatical) be modified, be limited, be determined, be defined; corelfoi m pronoun or determiner. inelf v have some numerical relationship. teigelf v be neatened, be tidied.

I feel like I might have a vague sense of when to use each one, but I'm having trouble seeing the distinction clearly enough to articulate it. Does anyone else see how this might work?

[Richard W]

Unlike in Laulai, Greek has not altered the core morphology of Coptic.

Isn't Coptic gender agreement in true adjectives restricted to Greek loans?

[rotting bones]

Unlike in Laulai, Greek has not altered the core morphology of Coptic.

Isn't Coptic gender agreement in true adjectives restricted to Greek loans?

This is a tendency, but isn't sabe/sabh an exception? https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03092432/document

[quinterbeck]

Lately I've been working on moving Heláin onto paper: I'm planning to keep printouts of everything in a binder, and handwrite corrections/additions until a section's getting hard to use, then update on the computer and print again. Right now I'm trying to deal with a messy backlog of vocab-related agenda before I print the lexicon. I found no fewer than three reminders to myself to work out the distinction between the verbs tag and elf. Here are the lexicon entries (deleting a word I'm not sure works):

tag {?PH *s-takʰa} v be arranged, be set in order; signify, mean, symbolise; be fated; inf arrangement; system; meaning; fate; act administrator. tegien f order. teigoi m rubric, chart. tegéid f part of a system, class; method; declension or conjugation; musical mode, key; cobitegéid {cobi ‘belly’} f digestive system, cusentegéid {cusen ‘heart’} f circulatory system. tanga m sign, symbol, token; curitanga {curi ‘market’} f logograph, pictographic label. | antag v (of a fyrd or army) be arranged for battle; inf battle-lines; battle; act warlord’s commander; ivantegir act commander over an army from more than one fyrdland. antegéin f battlefield. artag v be done out of order or against a system; (music) be sung out of key. intag v be rightly ordered. brenatag {bren ‘hand’ < bar} v be gestured at with the hand, be pointed at.

elfa {?PH *ælpʰa; cf. ilva} f kind, sort, class, family; kinship, relationship. inelfa f ratio; teiginelfa f the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its radius (two pi or tau). aiyelfa {aia} f language, tongue. incireilfa {incir ‘be inflected’ < cir} f a particular declension or conjugation. teimbeteilfa {teimbot ‘dance’} f a metrical segment of the form long-short-long-short. | elf v be related (to com. person or thing); be sorted, classified (with com. persons or things). corelf v (grammatical) be modified, be limited, be determined, be defined; corelfoi m pronoun or determiner. inelf v have some numerical relationship. teigelf v be neatened, be tidied.

I feel like I might have a vague sense of when to use each one, but I'm having trouble seeing the distinction clearly enough to articulate it. Does anyone else see how this might work?

It seems like concepts under tag generally have more internal structure than those under elf (aielfa 'language' being the main exception)