Conlang Random Thread

[Knit Tie]

So I want to make the central feature of my conlang's grammar a system of completely separate and obligatory marking for TAM and evidentiality, and I'd like to ask you guys how many grammatical functions can eventually be offloaded onto this system if we say that it's both old and highly productive?

[jal]

So I want to make the central feature of my conlang's grammar a system of completely separate and obligatory marking for TAM and evidentiality

Can you give some (pseudo) examples of what you have in mind?


JAL

[Knit Tie]

So I want to make the central feature of my conlang's grammar a system of completely separate and obligatory marking for TAM and evidentiality

Can you give some (pseudo) examples of what you have in mind?
JAL

Sure thing, mate!

So, this whole system arose out of mashing together verbs and particles of the modern English - I'm still screwing around with its hypothetical descendants, you see - where, say, the phrase "I think Tom is going to be writing" got condenced into one verb "Tom thymyyreecyn" /tom t̪ɨmɨːɾeːt͡ʃɨn/, the surface form of "thyn" (from "think") + "wyy" ("will") + "reet" ("write") + š (3rd person "-s" marker, reinterpreted to mark the indicative mood) + "yn" ("-ing").

This isn't finalised by any chance, but so far I'm thinking of having four evidentiality categories (confirmed, probable, possible and unlikely), three tenses (past, present and future), 8 moods (indicative, conditional, imperative, renarrative, potential, interrogative, deductive and speculative) and three aspects (perfective, imperfective and progressive). The first two categories are prefixes, the second two are suffixes, and they all attach obligatorily to each verb before any other clitics or particles, in a strict order of evidentiality-tense-verb-mood-aspect. This system is deliberately supposed to be very elaborate, extensive and complex, as well as actually quite recent - I've been wanting to play for a while with a descendant language that is, grammatically, much complex than its ancestor.

[jal]

Sure thing, mate!

So fairly standard agglutanative pre- and suffixes. I could see this developing into a more fusional system as well, especially with oft used combinations.


JAL

[Xwtek]

So, this whole system arose out of mashing together verbs and particles of the modern English - I'm still screwing around with its hypothetical descendants, you see - where, say, the phrase "I think Tom is going to be writing" got condenced into one verb "Tom thymyyreecyn" /tom t̪ɨmɨːɾeːt͡ʃɨn/, the surface form of "thyn" (from "think") + "wyy" ("will") + "reet" ("write") + š (3rd person "-s" marker, reinterpreted to mark the indicative mood) + "yn" ("-ing").

I don't think your conjugation is diachronically possible. After all, we never use verb forms like "likesing" or "breaksing".

[Knit Tie]

So, this whole system arose out of mashing together verbs and particles of the modern English - I'm still screwing around with its hypothetical descendants, you see - where, say, the phrase "I think Tom is going to be writing" got condenced into one verb "Tom thymyyreecyn" /tom t̪ɨmɨːɾeːt͡ʃɨn/, the surface form of "thyn" (from "think") + "wyy" ("will") + "reet" ("write") + š (3rd person "-s" marker, reinterpreted to mark the indicative mood) + "yn" ("-ing").

I don't think your conjugation is diachronically possible. After all, we never use verb forms like "likesing" or "breaksing".

Not even after a thousand years or so? This system didn't develop out of the modern English straight away, it developed out of an already-agglutinative future English.

[k1234567890y]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wari’_language

kinda wanna do a language with a similar vowel system...

[masako]

So; in transcribing /a:/, which would you use?

1) aa
2) á
3) ā
4) something else
5) just go eat a taco

[bradrn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wari’_language

kinda wanna do a language with a similar vowel system...

Is this a question, a comment, or simply a statement?

On the other hand, that is probably the weirdest vowel system I’ve ever seen… If I hadn’t seen that page, I wouldn’t even have thought it to be possible!

For convenience, the vowel system in question is:

Code: Select all

i y
e ø  o
a

So; in transcribing /a:/, which would you use?

1) aa
2) á
3) ā
4) something else
5) just go eat a taco

Usually either 1) or 3). I also quite like a꞉ — there’s one or two natlangs which already use it (I believe Halkomelem uses it), plus of course there’s zompist’s Wede꞉i.

(Side note: Halkomelem (or at least one dialect of it) does have a weird orthography in general though. From http://www.languagegeek.com/salishan/he ... _text.html, a small sample:

Xʷənaʔ syewənałct. Wilapiya θə nə sk̓ʷix, ʔi təli cən ʔəƛ̓ Scəwaθən. […] Səw̓ xʷən̓ ʔəxʷin̓ ʔal̓, ʔəw̓ sƛ̓iƛ̓qəł ʔal̓ ʔiʔ sq̓əq̓aʔ cən ʔə t̓ᶿə nə sil̓ə ʔə kʷs q̓pəθəts t̓ᶿə sʔəl̓eləxʷ ʔiʔ wəł x̌ʷiʔem nec̓aʔ niʔ c̓ełəm̓əte:n̓ niʔ cən təw̓ heʔk̓ʷ. Hay čxʷ q̓a.

I didn’t even know you got superscript θ in Unicode until now! But apparently Halkomelem uses it, and only in the digraph t̓ᶿ — it wouldn’t be so sane as to have plain tᶿ as well!)

(Side note 2: Since I was talking about it, how is ‘Wede꞉i’ pronounced anyway? Is it /wedeː.i/, /wede͡ːi/, or something else?)

[Xwtek]

So; in transcribing /a:/, which would you use?

1) aa
2) á
3) ā
4) something else
5) just go eat a taco

It depends in your language. Personally I prefer <aa>. However, if your language treats length as distinctive quality, then <ā>. Please don't use <á>. Alternatively, if you write germlang, or your vowel is predictably long in open coda and short after cluster, use <a> followed by single consonant.

[bradrn]

Personally I prefer <aa>. However, if your language treats length as distinctive quality, then <ā>.

Question: Why would you need to indicate length if it’s not distinctive?

Please don't use <á>.

I completely agree!

Alternatively, if you write germlang, or your vowel is predictably long in open coda and short after cluster, use <a> followed by single consonant.

I didn’t even think about doing this when I wrote my reply, but this certainly is one possibility! To me it feels a bit ‘English-y’ (unless there’s other languages which do this as well), but if it’s predictable then this could well be the best choice.

[Zaarin]

So; in transcribing /a:/, which would you use?

1) aa
2) á
3) ā
4) something else
5) just go eat a taco

Usually either 1) or 3). I also quite like a꞉ — there’s one or two natlangs which already use it (I believe Halkomelem uses it), plus of course there’s zompist’s Wede꞉i.

(Side note: Halkomelem (or at least one dialect of it) does have a weird orthography in general though.

Mohawk also uses <:> to indicate vowel length, as do some of the other Iroquoian languages. Mohawk's orthography is a little saner (from Omniglot):

Teiohonwa:ka ne'ni akhonwe:ia
Kon'tatieshon iohnekotatie
Wakkawehatie wakkawehatie.

Please don't use <á>.

Why not? It has a long pedigree in European languages (Irish, Old English, Old Norse, diachronically Icelandic and Faroese, etc.) and the Professor's stamp of approval. That means using it will give your language a decidedly European aesthetic, but if that's what you're aiming for then by all means use it. Likewise <aa> or <a:> have a North American or African flavor*, while <ā> or <â> are probably the most region-neutral.

*Well, there is the alternate spelling of <aa> for <å> /ɔ/ (historical <á> /aː/) in Nordic countries.

[missals]

Yeah, <á> is also used in Hungarian and all Slavic languages with a Latin orthography. It's fine if you want a European aesthetic. Scottish Gaelic also uses <à>.

The colon isn't just in a few North American languages, it's used in most versions of the Americanist Phonetic Alphabet; i.e. for dozens and dozens of North American Languages. Many NA languages also use an interpunct: <a·>

So the choices include the following, at least:

1) aa
2) á
3) à
4) ā
5) a:
6) a·

There are also other language-specific methods for indicating length that arose out of diachronic happenstance, like the ogonek in Lithuanian, which originally indicated nasality, now indicating length due to historical developments.

[Xwtek]

Personally I prefer <aa>. However, if your language treats length as distinctive quality, then <ā>.

Question: Why would you need to indicate length if it’s not distinctive?

Sorry to make it unclear, I mean if [aː] is not considered /a/ + length, but as fundamentally different vowel like /a/ and /o/. Like Germanic languages

Alternatively, if you write germlang, or your vowel is predictably long in open coda and short after cluster, use <a> followed by single consonant.

I didn’t even think about doing this when I wrote my reply, but this certainly is one possibility! To me it feels a bit ‘English-y’ (unless there’s other languages which do this as well), but if it’s predictable then this could well be the best choice.

Uh, the entire Germanic languages? This orthography is certainly underrated. If your consonant have gemination contrast, though, you may want to use <ā> or <aa>

[Whimemsz]

(Side note: Halkomelem (or at least one dialect of it) does have a weird orthography in general though. From http://www.languagegeek.com/salishan/he ... _text.html, a small sample:

Xʷənaʔ syewənałct. Wilapiya θə nə sk̓ʷix, ʔi təli cən ʔəƛ̓ Scəwaθən. […] Səw̓ xʷən̓ ʔəxʷin̓ ʔal̓, ʔəw̓ sƛ̓iƛ̓qəł ʔal̓ ʔiʔ sq̓əq̓aʔ cən ʔə t̓ᶿə nə sil̓ə ʔə kʷs q̓pəθəts t̓ᶿə sʔəl̓eləxʷ ʔiʔ wəł x̌ʷiʔem nec̓aʔ niʔ c̓ełəm̓əte:n̓ niʔ cən təw̓ heʔk̓ʷ. Hay čxʷ q̓a.

I didn’t even know you got superscript θ in Unicode until now! But apparently Halkomelem uses it, and only in the digraph t̓ᶿ — it wouldn’t be so sane as to have plain tᶿ as well!)

That's a standard Salishan orthography; it only occurs in <t̓ᶿ> because there's no /tθ/ in the language, only /tθ’/. The Salishan language with the actually weird (aka stupid) orthography is Saanish (SENĆOŦEN), which (almost) only uses capital letters.

[bradrn]

That's a standard Salishan orthography; it only occurs in <t̓ᶿ> because there's no /tθ/ in the language, only /tθ’/. The Salishan language with the actually weird (aka stupid) orthography is Saanish (SENĆOŦEN), which (almost) only uses capital letters.

Oh yes, I completely forgot about Saanich! That has to be the weirdest Latin-script orthography I know of! For those who aren’t acquainted with the sheer bizarreness (is that a word?) of Saanich orthography (a.k.a. SENĆOŦEN), here are some details:

• All capital letters, except <-s> for some reason
• Stroked letters ȺȻꝀȽŦȾ (yes, T is stroked two different ways!)
• Comma for glottal stop (why? good question)
• Acute accent used with A/Á, C/Ć, K/Ḱ, S/Ś for no apparent reason (e.g. A and Á are the same, except the latter is used after post-velar consonants (what sort of language distinguishes palatal, pre- and postvelar?)) EDIT: palatal/pre/postvelar turns out to be the Americanist terminology for palatal/velar/uvular, which is indeed somewhat common.

Resulting in the following easy-to-read text:

SI,SI,OB BE₭OȻBIX̲ ,UQEȾ. ,ESZUW̲IL ELQE,. ,ESTOLX ELQE, ESDUQUD ,ESXEĆBID ȽṮUBEX̲ ELQE, ŚÍISȽ ,ÁL,ÁLŦ.

(That weird triangle X thing should actually be X with line below.)

Oh, and according to Wikipedia, Saanich uses regular metathesis for aspect. All in all, it makes the rest of Salishan look positively sane… which is an impressive achievement. (I do wonder sometimes why Salishan got all the crazy stuff… extreme polysynthesis, weird orthography, nounlessness, occasional vowellessness…)

[Xwtek]

That's a standard Salishan orthography; it only occurs in <t̓ᶿ> because there's no /tθ/ in the language, only /tθ’/. The Salishan language with the actually weird (aka stupid) orthography is Saanish (SENĆOŦEN), which (almost) only uses capital letters.

Oh yes, I completely forgot about Saanich! That has to be the weirdest Latin-script orthography I know of! For those who aren’t acquainted with the sheer bizarreness (is that a word?) of Saanich orthography (a.k.a. SENĆOŦEN), here are some details:

• All capital letters, except <-s> for some reason
• Stroked letters ȺȻꝀȽŦȾ (yes, T is stroked two different ways!)
• Comma for glottal stop (why? good question)
• Acute accent used with A/Á, C/Ć, K/Ḱ, S/Ś for no apparent reason (e.g. A and Á are the same, except the latter is used after post-velar consonants (what sort of language distinguishes palatal, pre- and postvelar?)) EDIT: palatal/pre/postvelar turns out to be the Americanist terminology for palatal/velar/uvular, which is indeed somewhat common.

Resulting in the following easy-to-read text:

SI,SI,OB BE₭OȻBIX̲ ,UQEȾ. ,ESZUW̲IL ELQE,. ,ESTOLX ELQE, ESDUQUD ,ESXEĆBID ȽṮUBEX̲ ELQE, ŚÍISȽ ,ÁL,ÁLŦ.

(That weird triangle X thing should actually be X with line below.)

Oh, and according to Wikipedia, Saanich uses regular metathesis for aspect. All in all, it makes the rest of Salishan look positively sane… which is an impressive achievement. (I do wonder sometimes why Salishan got all the crazy stuff… extreme polysynthesis, weird orthography, nounlessness, occasional vowellessness…)

Please put that here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=256

[bradrn]

Please put that here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=256

Yes, I was actually planning to do just that! (But thanks for the reminder — I almost forgot.) It will be up in a couple of minutes.

[masako]

So, it seems like <aa> is my best option.

[bradrn]

So, it seems like <aa> is my best option.

Why? (To be clear, I’m not criticising you, I’m just curious about your reasoning.)