The CBB

I intend my language to have (optional) polypersonal agreement. How naturalistic would it be for only the affixes agreeing with the subject to distinguish gender/animacy while the object affixes only mark person and number? The result would be thus: 3fs>3s: -tu-kka 3ms>3s: -ti-kka 3ns>3s: -ta-kka 3f...

I have this idea for Vrkhazhian: The language has no unmarked ditransitive verbs and the only way to form a true ditransitive is a verb in the applicative voice, of which there are two: the dative and the instrumental (which also double as a benefactive and causative, respectively). So, you'd have a...

But wouldn't a kind of 'source' vs. 'goal' vs. 'everything else' work? I guess it would amount to a complex combination of Split-S or Fluid-S with differential object marking and secundative alignment. So like the follwing. Intransitive verbs split according to semantic S-ABL V (e.g. I snore) S-ALL...

Visions1 wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024 21:56 Instead of a Nom-Acc-Gen or Nom-Acc-Obl distinction,
have an Ablative-Allative-Oblique distinction.

Can't work, at least not with that terminology. The definition of oblique is that it covers everything that isn't nominative (and vocative), absolutive, or direct.

Yes. A written work about a language is just a snapshot in time, after all. A language can be relatively stable for long periods of time with very few or no changes. Maybe not a few thousand years, but a few hundred for sure. Frankly, the more you learn about sound, semantic, and grammatical changes...

Omzinesý wrote: ↑12 Feb 2024 23:32 In what kind of vowel inventories does /ʉ/ (close central rounded vowel) appear?
Wikipedia has a very short list.

Ones with rounding harmony and its unrounded counterpart isn't neutral.

I think it would be important to make a distinction between a pronoun stem and pronoun form. A language with a lot of cases may have a lot of pronoun forms but working with a very small set of pronoun stems. Moreover you could have derived stems, such as derivied reflexive stems from basic stems. St...

I always interpreted Godzilla's breath as some kind of directed energy weapon and not some explosion emanated out of a mouth or dragonbreath.

Just concerning the "obstruent influence tone without bearing it"-question. Depressor consonant is a good key word. Onset obstruents can synchronically and phonetically influence tone because they require a certain state of the glottis for their voicing value which restricts the possible ...

So my language primarily develops tone through merging of voiced and voiceless obstruents in simple onsets and the simplification of complex onsets. This results in an ultimate manifestation of high, low, falling, and rising in open syllables, with the latter two coming from diphthongs. However I ca...

Vrkhazhian has no definiteness marking. However, nouns modified by demonstratives are inherently definite. I've also considered that the subject/agents of verbs tend to be definite by default while objects/patients are indefinite by default.

Omzinesý wrote: ↑09 Feb 2024 10:15 There was a conlang genarator that was able to generate relatively nice sketches.
What was its adress?

Gleb?

Does the following make sense? H R > M R = á ǎ > ā ǎ M R > L R = ā ǎ > à ǎ L R > no change = à ǎ > à ǎ H F > no change = á â > á â M F > H F = ā â > á â L F > M F = à â > ā â R H > no change = ǎ á > ǎ á R M > R H = ǎ ā > ǎ á R L > R M = ǎ à > ǎ ā F H > F M = â á > â ā F M > F L = â ā > â à F L > no ...

Came up with negative "pronouns" (negative particle (ˀu)du combined with personal suffixes) that convey "not X": Sg. / Pl. 1c: dunna / dutta 2f: dummu / dummun 2m: dummi / dummin 2n: dummas / dumman 3f: dukku / dukkun 3m: dukki / dukkin 3n: dukkas / dukkan Used to express the neg...

A follow-up question would be whether dative subjects in this language are always true syntactic subjects (as is usually argued for Icelandic), or whether they are actually indirect objects treated peculiarly with implied subjects (as is traditionally argued for Spanish, "me gusta", etc),...

Right, oh well, I was just thinking of this and mixed it up with the section above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stative_v ... s_analysis

I have a problem here, because by definition statives can't be transitive. [wikipedia does use the example '[be able to] play the piano', but I think that's something different, and it isn't covered by wikipedia's own lists of categories]. They can be bivalent in some languages (like "I hear t...

Would it make sense for a subject/agent noun to take the nominative case if the verb is stative (transitive or intransitive) and the ergative case if the verb is dynamic (transitive or intransitive)? And would it make sense for inanimates to possess nom-acc syncretism but maintain a separate ergativ...

I'm thinking of a system where some verbs have indirect alignment and some verbs have secundative alignment. And there would be a separate instrumental and dative case (rather than a shared marker).

I always described [x] as a "crisp" sound, and nowhere near as harsh and gutteral as [X] which sounds to me like an attempt to clear up phlegm in the throat.