Zompist Bboard Again

dhok wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:01 am fwiw there was a similar shift in Finland after independence, where Finns (who didn't necessarily speak Swedish) with Swedish last names switched en masse to Finnish last names.

miekko might know the history in better detail

On the internet, I've got the impression that among the Finnish citizens I've met or heard about, there seem to be quite a lot with Swedish surnames and Finnish given names.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:08 am Thank you, Salmoneus!

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:34 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:14 am Conlanging-related computer question, because I'm feeling lazy:

Suppose that, in preparation for writing sound changes, I want a text file with a column where each line has something along the lines of

[fill in vowel here]/[placeholder]/_[fill in consonant here]

with lines for all possible combinations of vowels and consonants in one of my languages. Is there any way of getting there that doesn't require me to, you know, type all those lines by hand?

It looks like you’ve figured out a solution already, but this looks like a good opportunity to promote my SCA. Although it doesn’t provide functionality to do this directly, it does include an ‘affixer’ which allows words to be created with multiple prefixes/infixes/suffixes. So you could potentially pretend that your sound change is actually a word, use the affixer to insert all your sound changes into the ‘words’ section, and then copy the newly-created sound changes into the ‘sound change’ section.

Thank you! I've already installed your SCA, though I haven't used it much yet, because I've installed it under Windows, and I tend to do my meager attempts at conlanging under Linux.

You’re welcome! You can find some documentation on the old board if you need it — it’s very similar to zompist’s SCA2. Unfortunately the documentation is very disorganised; I’ve been meaning to put it in a better form but haven’t quite got to it yet…

Ser wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:42 pm I don't know what you mean by "3SG" though. Do you mean something that'd mean "whole" or "entire" instead, as in "the entire thread"? In Arabic, the singular is only used in this construction for collective nouns that trigger singular agreement:

third person possessive prefixes.

Ser wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:42 pm What do you mean?

Existential quantifier.

Another question, how about quantifiers like any, some, etc.

Could you just write an example phrase or sentence for each of the constructions you're wondering about? For instance, how are you proposing to express a universal quantifier? How are you proposing to express an existential quantifier, any, some, etc.? No offense, but your questions are so short I can't tell what you're trying to ask.

If what you are asking is whether its plausible to have quantifiers that look like (or have grammaticalized from) possessive phrases with number agreement, then yes, I think this could work. Words like "set/entirety", "mass/collection/amount/majority", "group/handful/minority", and "instance/specimen", could easily grammaticalize to mean "all", "many", "a few", and "a single one" respectively, and similarly words like "presence/existence/appearance/gift/..." could grammaticalize into an existential quantifier. In English and many other languages, these kinds of words often appear in possessive-like constructions. In a language where possessive morphology distinguishes number and/or person, these distinctions could of course remain productive while the quantity nouns grammaticalize to quantifiers.

The tricky thing, of course, would be to justify why the same quantity noun would be used both with singular and plural referents, so that it could become a quantifier where number marking would be significant at all, and not just a frozen 3SG marker on "instance" and 3PL on other quantifiers.

cedh wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:42 am If what you are asking is whether its plausible to have quantifiers that look like (or have grammaticalized from) possessive phrases with number agreement,

Yes, that's right.

Additional question. Is it realistic for a numeral system is marked verbally for 1-5, but nominally above that, with verb to count? For example:

mau

cat

s-tah

REL-be.one

one cat

but

mau-n

cat-PL

s=tsuu

REL=be.counted

gon-tah

five-one

six cats

The syntax

mau

cat

?s-tsuu

REL=be.counted

tah

one

one cat
is possible but rare. However,

mau-n

cat-PL

*su=gon-tah

REL=be.six

is not possible, because gon-tah is a noun, not a verb. And noun can't simply become verbs. Tah as noun and as verb is coincidentally the same, but the rest of the number is not. The word for two is khe as noun, but khas as verb

Xwtek wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:11 am

cedh wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:42 am If what you are asking is whether its plausible to have quantifiers that look like (or have grammaticalized from) possessive phrases with number agreement,

Yes, that's right.

Additional question. Is it realistic for a numeral system is marked verbally for 1-5, but nominally above that, with verb to count?

I’ve never heard of verbs being used to count; is it attested anywhere? (Although it does sound plausible enough to work.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:08 am

Xwtek wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:11 am

cedh wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:42 am If what you are asking is whether its plausible to have quantifiers that look like (or have grammaticalized from) possessive phrases with number agreement,

Yes, that's right.

Additional question. Is it realistic for a numeral system is marked verbally for 1-5, but nominally above that, with verb to count?

I’ve never heard of verbs being used to count; is it attested anywhere? (Although it does sound plausible enough to work.)

Samoan

It sounds very plausible to me - it's not unusual for low numbers to have different rules from high numbers, and in particular for high numbers to be more invariant than low numbers (eg to have gender agreement on low numbers but not on high). Essentially what we're talking about here are verbal adjectives, including numerals, but large numbers needing an auxiliary, and to me that makes a lot of sense. Conceivably there could also be verbs for some higher units like 'ten' or 'a hundred'.

You could have the auxiliary be the same as the verb for 'one' - so "they are eight" could be, in effect, "they are one eight". This would then even let you incorporate bases into the system - "they are one nineteen" but "they are two tens". Or do the opposite - instead of having 'one' be transitive, use adverbs, so that you have 'they are one nineteen-times" but "they are ten twice".

This could also interract with counter systems - austronesian languages do often use certain numbers as numerical classifiers (so, not 'there are five apples' but 'there is a five of apples'). And of course this can also interract with possessive classifiers, particularly if possession is marked the same as verb agreement (the split in numbers would then effectively be a split in alienable vs inalienable possession...)

...but now I'm thinking of ideas for my own Rawàng Ata, so thank you, and apologies if I'm rambling...


----

I would say: consider how you treat numbers in different circumstances, and whether they're all the same. Some examples you might want to translate:

- "There are two cats" (i.e. here, two cats are present)
- "There are two cats" (i.e. the cats are twofold in number - the number of the cats is two)
- "The two cats both ate mice"
- "Two of the cats ate mice"
- "I gave him two cats"
- "I gave each of them two cats each"
- "There aren't two cats"
- "There's a plethora of cats"
- "However many cats you have, that's how many cat bowls you should have"
- "That's two cats too many"

etc...

Old Common's non-contrasting vowels /ɪ ʊ y/ are all reconstructed from an ambiguously-rounded high central vowel, /ɩ/. The more I think about the reanalysis below, the less I like it. As I love the idea of the language, at least, starting out with ambiguously-rounded vowels we don't have, is the status quo of three non-contrasting vowels dissimulating from a high central vowel, or having /ɪ, ʊ/ dissimulate from an ambiguously-rounded near-high central vowel more natural? If the latter, how should I handle the parent of /ɑ, ɔ/, which differ in height?

Key
L = liquid/semivowel/approximant
N = nasal
O = obstruent

[ɩ → ɪ] / {L_, _L}
[ɩ → ʊ] / {N_, _N}
[ɩ → y] / {O_, _O}

Xwtek wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:27 pm

Ser wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:42 pmI don't know what you mean by "3SG" though. Do you mean something that'd mean "whole" or "entire" instead, as in "the entire thread"? In Arabic, the singular is only used in this construction for collective nouns that trigger singular agreement:

third person possessive prefixes.

Well, yes, I know that, in fact I used "3SG" in the Arabic example right below my question for you. Let me restate my question: what would a singular "3SG" prefix mean in terms of universal quantification? Do you mean something that'd mean "whole" or "entire" instead, as in "the entire thread"?

Arabic doesn't use the construction I mentioned for existential quantifiers, including "any"/"some".

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:48 am Conceivably there could also be verbs for some higher units like 'ten' or 'a hundred'.

You mean, there is word for to be 5 and to be 20, while there is no verbal form for number between them, except supported by tsuu?

TurkeySloth wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:15 am Key
L = liquid/semivowel/approximant
N = nasal
O = obstruent

[ɩ → ɪ] / {L_, _L}
[ɩ → ʊ] / {N_, _N}
[ɩ → y] / {O_, _O}

I don't know what your possible syllable structures are, but it looks like your sound change rules are not specific enough. What happens to, say LɩO?

Also, why does this protolang vowel dissimilate along the front-back axis depending on the manner of the adjacent consonant? Place of articulation can have this kind of interaction, e.g. fronting a vowel adjacent to a palatal consonant, but I have a hard time imagining the mechanics for manner based effects like this

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:37 am

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:48 am Conceivably there could also be verbs for some higher units like 'ten' or 'a hundred'.

You mean, there is word for to be 5 and to be 20, while there is no verbal form for number between them, except supported by tsuu?

Yes, I think that would be realistic. Although of course it would also be realistic to lack those '5' and '20 words as well.

Sorry if this has been posted before, but old school conlang blogger Justin B Rye has some new content on his website. The fact that his site is still growing after twenty years is amazing; it's like finding out that Richard Kenneway is still collecting conlang links or something. Anyway, check out mytholinguistics.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:03 am Sorry if this has been posted before, but old school conlang blogger Justin B Rye has some new content on his website. The fact that his site is still growing after twenty years is amazing; it's like finding out that Richard Kenneway is still collecting conlang links or something. Anyway, check out mytholinguistics.

He seems like: "Every world has to be earthlike." The problem is that some world doesn't necessarily earthlike.

Anyway, my world is radically nonearthlike. It's flat, small, and has a completely different physics. For example, there is no such thing as the Second law of Thermodynamics, gravity can be easily manipulated, magic is everywhere, etc. It should be okay, right?

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:57 am

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:03 am Sorry if this has been posted before, but old school conlang blogger Justin B Rye has some new content on his website. The fact that his site is still growing after twenty years is amazing; it's like finding out that Richard Kenneway is still collecting conlang links or something. Anyway, check out mytholinguistics.

He seems like: "Every world has to be earthlike." The problem is that some world doesn't necessarily earthlike.

Anyway, my world is radically nonearthlike. It's flat, small, and has a completely different physics. For example, there is no such thing as the Second law of Thermodynamics, gravity can be easily manipulated, magic is everywhere, etc. It should be okay, right?

My impression is that his point is more something like "a world can be earthlike, or not earthlike, but if it is not earthlike, there's no good reason for it to have any earthlike features at all".

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:03 am Sorry if this has been posted before, but old school conlang blogger Justin B Rye has some new content on his website. The fact that his site is still growing after twenty years is amazing; it's like finding out that Richard Kenneway is still collecting conlang links or something. Anyway, check out mytholinguistics.

How staggeringly wrongheaded. I think he could maybe write a more interesting analysis if he concentrated less on inflating his self-esteem through the mockery of others, and more on trying to even vaguely understand the works he's talking about, from either an internal or an external perspective. As it is, he appears not to understand Tolkien, Middle-Earth, or indeed fiction.

All the many bits where he goes on about what an omnipotent and inscrutable Creator, or a race of aliens, 'would probably' have come up with - i.e. something that suits his aesthetic preferences and not Tolkien's - are just idiotic.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:25 amI think he could maybe write a more interesting analysis if he concentrated less on inflating his self-esteem through the mockery of others,

Yeah, it's really bad when people try to inflate their own self-esteem through the mockery of others. That shouldn't be done. Ever. And it's absolutely impossible to write an interesting analysis that way.




(In case you don't understand what I'm getting at, mocking others in a way that might be uncharitably interpreted as designed to inflate one's own self-esteem is basically the default writing mode for educated Britons, or at least the ones I've read so far, and attacking that writing mode on a fundamental level is a quite silly thing to do if you're an educated Briton who writes a lot yourself.)

I don't get the rancor... so far as I can see, Rye is mostly saying that if Tolkien's lore is true, then neither the elves nor their languages should look like things that developed from a long process of evolution. For instance, there's no good reason why elven bodies should have the design failures that biological evolution saddled us with, and there's no good reason why a semidivine language creator should end up with a language that looks like a typical human language.

Personally, I think it's fine to fall back on genre convention and personal taste. (Fantasy almost never treats sentient beings with biological exactitude, as science fiction does; and Tolkien made his languages as he did because he liked them that way.) And it's also fine to shake things up and imagine how we might do something differently.