Zompist Bboard Again

I created this language for a LARP about an alien society that's much like a whitewashed Victorian England, with one key difference: there are four genders. Mostly I was trying to test-run different pronoun systems, and the one we ended up using in the LARP was not the one I created for this language, but I did end up with a language with about 300 lexical items and fairly complete grammar. It’s a monosyllabic analytic language with complex phonotactics and no tones; its syntax is SVO and mostly head-final, with coverbs, serial verbs, and relational nouns rather than adpositions. It is more isolating than English but less than Chinese.

I bring up the gender issue just to explain why there are no kinship terms in the language - they’d be completely different from anything human. But everything else is intended to be for the most part naturalistic. I could shoehorn kinship terms, in either the gender system of the aliens (called "Trave," /tɹei̯v/, which is also the Low Riparian word for a person) or the human one, but instead of inventing new vocab I am going to describe the language as I created it in the summer of 2015.

Phonology

MOA\POA	Labial	Dental	Alveolar	Postalveolar	Velar
Stop/affricate	/p b/ <p b>		/t d/ <t d>	/tʃ dʒ/ <ch j>	/k g/ <k g>
Fricative	/f v/ <f v>	/θ ð/ <th dh>	/s z/ <s z>	/ʃ ʒ/ <sh zh>	/x ɣ/ <kh gh>
Nasal	/m̥ m/ <mh m>		/n̥ n/ <nh n>	/ɲ̊ ɲ/ <ñh ñ>	/ŋ̊ ŋ/ <ngh ng>
Approximant			/ɹ/ <r>
Lateral approximant			/l/ <l>

Note: while /t d n̥ n/ are phonetically alveolar, they are phonologically in the same series as the dental fricatives, not /s z/.

There are five vowels: /a e i o u/, <a e i o u>. Any sequence of the form /i u/ + /a e o/ or /a e o/ + /i u/ is an admissible diphthong; the sequences /iu/ and /ui/, pronounced [ju] and [wi], round up the inventory of diphthongs. The triphthongs are of the form /i/ + /a e o/ + /u/ or /u/ + /a e o/ + /i/. If due to borrowing, a triphthong such as <iei> is formed, the first element is dropped.

A syllable consists of an optional onset, a vowel (which may be a diphthong or triphthong), and an optional coda. The onsets are of the form /(s)(C)(L)/ or /z(L)/. Here, (L) indicates an optional <l r>, and (C) indicates an optional consonant other than <s z l r>. If the onset is of the form /sC(L)/, then the consonant C must be voiceless, but we will Romanize such clusters as <sm sn sñ sng> to avoid writing a superfluous <h>. The codas are of the form /(L)(C)(s)/ or /(L)z/, with the same requirement that if an /s/ is present, the consonant C must be voiceless.

Phonetically, voiceless nasals are glottalized in syllable codas, and aspirated in syllable onsets. In addition, although phonologically nasals in consonant clusters with /s/ are considered voiceless, they are neither aspirated nor glottalized, and are usually partially voiced.

The postalveolar obstruents are conventionally treated as /tʃ dʒ ʃ ʒ/, but their realization can be retroflex, alveolo-palatal, or even fully palatal. Alveolo-palatal realizations are common in onsets before /i/ or after /s/, and retroflex ones before /ɹ/ or in codas after /ɹ/. The onset /sʃ/, as well as /stʃ/ in less careful speech, is usually pronounced [ʃ:], which again may be realized as [ɕ:] or [ʂ:]. This assimilation is occasionally encountered in codas, but is uncommon and stereotyped.

Finally, observe that any combination of onset, vowel, and coda is an admissible syllable, even complex ones such as <smlieurchs>. Most syllables are far less complex than the maximum permitted, just as in English, most syllable codas are not as complex as in <sixths>.

In practice, it is not common for codas to be of the form /LC(s)/ after a triphthong or closing diphthong. Historically, closing diphthongs would not form before <l r>, and to the extent they exist in Low Riparian, it’s due to borrowing. It’s considered an urban uneducated working-class feature to drop the second element of the diphthong in this circumstance (thus, pronouncing <deirn>, “skeleton,” as <dern>). It’s also not common for coda to be of the form /Cs/ after a closing diphthong, but it’s more common than /LC/ or /LCs/, and no native speaker simplifies the vowel or the coda in this case.

In addition, the bare consonants <e o> never end a syllable; there’s always a closing diphthong element or a coda, and in borrowings of open syllables they’re replaced with <ei ou>. In contrast, <a i u> can end a syllable, although it’s rare for all three.

Orthography

We'll only ever deal with Romanized orthography, but for completeness, Low Riparian orthography is described. It is a featural system, similar to Tengwar; Tengwar itself would be very good for Low Riparian, since the presence of voiceless nasals makes its base 4*3*2 system especially easy (and again, orthographically /t d n̥ n/ are treated as dental). Like Hangeul, each syllable is written in a block, making it hard to shoehorn words that do not fit into native phonology; unlike Hangeul, the native phonotactics is so permissive that this is never a problem.

While the consonants are perfectly phonemic, the vowels are merely graphemic. The surrounding languages have seven vowels, including /ø y/, Romanized <ö ü>; like /i/, /y/ can be used as a semivowel as well as a vowel nucleus. All but the most pretentious Low Riparians pronounce them /e i/, with one exception: if an <ü> forms a diphthong or triphthong with an <i>, such as <üei> or <iü>, then it is treated as an /u/. Some less educated Low Riparians even spell common borrowings that should be spelled <ö ü> as <e i>.

Why is it called Low Riparian? Do these aliens live on the plains or in coastal areas?

Raholeun wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:42 am Why is it called Low Riparian? Do these aliens live on the plains or in coastal areas?

They live all over their planet, much like humans on Earth; Low Riparian is just the language of one particular country that's coastal, in contrast to the farther upland area speaking High Riparian.

Alon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:55 pm I created this language for a LARP about an alien society that's much like a whitewashed Victorian England, with one key difference: there are four genders.

Looks good. There sure are a lot of nasals. I'm a big fan of voiceless nasals but don't use them in my conlangs much. Nor do I see them that often in my studies. Voiceless w is a special favorite of mine. I think it occurs and occurs in k^wh in 1600s Massachusett, this important language I'm deciphering these years.

Grammar (Part 1)

Low Riparian has no inflectional morphology, and, in traditional analyses, is not considered to have derivational morphology. Categories such as case, tense, and number are expressed via word order and particles; derivations that are expressed with suffixes such as <-ness> and <re-> in English are expressed via free morphemes. Nouns do not have grammatical gender, and there are no classifiers.

The word order is a mixture of head-first and head-last, and is similar to that of English. The basic word order is subject-verb-object (SVO), but it is possible to change the word order using particles denoting case, which has the effect of making the fronted element more prominent. Adjectives, numerals, and possessives precede nouns; adverbs may precede or follow verbs; relative clauses follow noun phrases; there are prepositions rather than postpositions.

The language uses serial verbs. Many prepositions, especially locative ones, are syntactically verbs, and are used without a copula. For example, the sentence “I am at the house” is <jut fal ster>, where <fal> is the verb “to be at.”

Pronouns

Pronouns do not inflect for case or number. The first-person pronoun is <jut> and the second-person pronoun is <bras>. There are no proper third-person pronouns; instead, Low Riparian uses several constructions:

• Repetition of the antecedent. If the antecedent is composed of several morphemes, only the head (i.e. the last) is typically repeated.
• Repetition of a title or category; for a person, this might be a profession or family relationship. It is polite to use this when the profession or title is honorable, and less polite when it is derogatory. To connote respect, the mayor of a town will be referred to as <shriul>, “mayor,” while their butler will not be referred to as <ghov>, “servant.”
• The generic category <khings>, “thing.” It best approximates the English pronoun “it,” but can also be used in the plural. It is never used for people except to denote they are un-Traven, and is considered derogatory to refer to ideas, places, groups of people, or valuable possessions.
• The demonstrative <ñaus>, “that one.” It best approximates the English “they,” including its use as a singular. Unlike the English use of “that one,” it is not derogatory, and is advised in situations where politeness level is unclear.
• If the object of a verb is the same as its subject, it uses the reflexive particle <greip>. If <greip> is used, no additional pronoun is required. Hence, “I love myself” is <jut khloi greip>, and “they bought themselves a present” is <ñaus ngrak as teln greip dhos>, where <ngrak> is “buy,” <as> is a completive aspect marker, <teln> is “give” used as a serial verb with <ngrak>, and <dhos> is “gift” or “present.”

The proper demonstratives are <vin> for “this” and <ñab> for “that.” They can be combined with nouns, but are not used as pronouns, as the language prefers single-syllable pronouns. There is no proximal equivalent of <ñaus>, meaning “this one”; historically, <vins> was used as a self-effacing first-person pronoun, but has fallen out of use.

While there are no number markers, there are multiple ways to indicate plurality, both for a pronoun and for a common noun. The two most common are the quantifiers <pich>, which means “all of,” and <sung>, which means “several of” or “some of.” Both precede the noun and any numeral. It is technically possible to use <sung> in the singular, but it is uncommon, and people who do so are viewed with the same disdain as people who say “well, actually…” Additional quantifiers include <rielngh>, “many,” and <thral>, “few” (not “a few”).

Quantifiers may also be used as common nouns or pronouns; they are understood to modify a noun or pronoun that is suppressed. The expression “everybody knows” is thus <pich suath>, literally “all know.”

In the plural, there is another reflexive: <sued>, which means “each other” or “one another.” When used with a pronoun or a noun, it always implies plurality. Thus, <jut khloi greip> could mean “I love myself” and “we love ourselves,” but <jut khloi sued> is exclusively plural. It is possible to use both <sued> and <greip>: <jut khloi sued greip> means “we love each other and ourselves.”

To use <greip> but not <sued> with an obviously plural antecedent, for example one with <pich>, implies a distributive “each” construction.

The singular is zero-marked. If a singular marking is required for clarity, as in the expression “one of us,” the number one is used with <sung>: <ned sung jut> means “one of us,” the only time <sung> can normally refer to a singular. Without <sung>, numerals specify an exact number: thus, <luei sung bras> means “two of you” whereas <luei bras> means “you two,” which provides another way to explicitly mark plurality. There is no marking for duality except the numeral <luei>, thus the only way to distinguish “each other” from “one another” is using the numeral.

It is possible to use the quantifiers <pich>, <sung>, <rielng>, and <thral> with the demonstrative pronoun <ñaus>. It is also possible to use them with <vin> and <ñab>, but this is deprecated; traditional grammarians consider these particles to all be determiners and look down on what they call serial determiner usage, preferring to drop the demonstratives entirely in these cases: “all of those people” is rendered <pich treiv> in the traditional grammar, and not <pich ñab treiv>.

Politeness

In Low Riparian, politeness is denoted by word choice, especially of title. It is rare and archaic to use circumlocutions for <jut>, and not too common to use circumlocutions for <bras>. However, it is more common to use a respectful title as an interjection. When speaking respectfully toward a person, the title immediately follows <bras>; when speaking respectfully about a person, the title is used as a pronoun, as explained above.

The common titles include the following:

• <nhiar>: a general coverall term for “sir/ma’am.” Strictly speaking it is more equivalent to “Mrs.,” since it denotes that the referent is podded. It contrasts with <skhau>, which is equivalent to “Miss.” It is standard to call an adult or young adult of unknown pod status <nhiar>. Using <skhau> with an adult who is podded or of unknown status is derogatory, implying they are childlike. With a child, or a young adult who one knows to be unpodded, <skhau> is normal, and <nhiar> can range in connotation from implying the referent is mature to sarcastically implying they’re getting ahead of themselves.
• <blom>: historically “master” or “lord/lady.” It is used to address people of socially superior status, but is in decline in urban areas, and connotes peasants talking to nobility. It is preserved in case adults address children or unmarried adults who are their social superiors, for example adult servants to the children they serve.
• <thurf>: a term of veneration for a teacher or a professor. To someone who is not a teacher, the range of connotation is the same as that of using <nhiar> with a child.
• <sailk>: literally “commander.” Within the military, it is used to address a superior officer. Outside the military, it is commonly used as a term of respect for officers, varies in connotation for NCOs, and universally denotes sarcastic contempt for a civilian who has never served.
• <shriul>: “mayor.” May be used for a lesser public official, but could also indicate the referent has higher political ambitions.
• <jrengs>: “judge.” The expression <bras jrengs> traditionally means “Your Honor,” but is being deprecated, as people increasingly use <bras tuork jrengs>, where <tuork> is an adjective roughly meaning “honorable” or “esteemed.”
• <stierk>: by itself it means “citizen” or “voter” and is not an honorific, but <tuork stierk> is used for parliamentarians.
• <fuaks>: “doctor” (medical only).
• <mleud>: “priest.” It has the same connotation as calling a Catholic priest “father.”

Note: a pod is a married quad of Traves. Traves do not accumulate partners gradually; cross-culturally, their biggest sexual taboo is relationships with only two or three sexes, which they call deficient, which in part is due to the fact that if Traves of any three distinct sexes begin having sex, they produce pheromones that are irresistible to any nearby member of the fourth. Thus, a normative Trave is either single or podded (or widowed). Since the LARP we came up with this for is an exploration of alternate gender systems, there's a number of characters who prefer deficient sex as a matter of either personal preference or orientation. (And for all the colonial whitewashing, I think we did a good job with the exploration of gender.)

How your language express relative clause and subordinate clause?