The CBB

Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
It is currently Thu 19 Oct 2017, 15:16

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12961 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon 09 Oct 2017, 16:23 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Posts: 2543
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Tuyono wrote:
Does it seem unnatural to have the fricatives /v s z ʃ ʒ x h/ without /f/? Would getting rid of /v/ as well make more sense? Keeping it would be nice but I just don't want /f/ in there.
I should mention that I have both /p/ and /b/ in said language.


Georgian, although Georgian also has /ɣ/ but whatever.

In such instances some language have /v/ "pattern" or "behave" as if it were an approximant, especially if there's no /w/ in the phoneme inventory as well, but I think I've some across languages with /v/ and /w/ but no /f/ so it doesn't seem unreasonable either.

_________________
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 09 Oct 2017, 21:37 
rupestrian
rupestrian
User avatar

Joined: Sun 06 Aug 2017, 14:09
Posts: 7
Thank you! There is actually no /w/ so I guess it works.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 10 Oct 2017, 19:23 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Posts: 2543
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Tuyono wrote:
Thank you! There is actually no /w/ so I guess it works.


Oh then that definitely works [:)]

Annoyingly, I couldn't track down any "/v/ with /w/ but not /f/" languages, but I didn't do a huge search.

_________________
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 11 Oct 2017, 03:30 
cleardarkness
cleardarkness

Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16
Posts: 4329
sangi39 wrote:
Tuyono wrote:
Thank you! There is actually no /w/ so I guess it works.


Oh then that definitely works [:)]

Annoyingly, I couldn't track down any "/v/ with /w/ but not /f/" languages, but I didn't do a huge search.

I found Baure. [:)]

_________________
HííenununóóoþaProject LimestoneAłýýla
EnelloNınuıntı


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 11 Oct 2017, 04:20 
korean
korean
User avatar

Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Posts: 5915
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu
So, my proto-lang Haxyakian has a threeway register system, with different sets of personal and demonstrative pronouns for each degree of formality:
https://conworkshop.info/view_article.p ... 5c16b27658
  • Sacred: it is used primarily within religious texts as well as when discussing them but it is also used by monarchs. Lacks third person pronouns and uses archaisms more frequently. The affix -huñ is infixed into verbs.
  • Public/Formal: used for public and open social settings, such as a marketplace or a large bar. The affix -āċdu is suffixed to verbs.
  • Private/Informal: used for private and closed social settings, such as a household, a backalley brawl, or a private business deal between a small number of individuals.

Now, I'm wondering how can I demolish this system to create different pronoun systems in the four Charric languages?
For example, in West Charric, the formal distal pronoun becomes a normal distal pronoun while the informal distal pronoun becomes a normal medial pronoun, while the formal proximal and and sacred distal pronouns become lost (that or the formal proximal singular becomes the accusative case prefix). Also in West Charric, the formal 3rd person plural pronoun becomes a 3rd person plural exclusive pronoun. Lastly, the formal 1st person singular patient and genitive pronouns replace the informal 1st person singular patient and genitive pronouns.

East Charric might preserve it to some degree but shift from an open/private distinction to a seniority-based system.

_________________
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 11 Oct 2017, 21:52 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Posts: 2543
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
DesEsseintes wrote:
sangi39 wrote:
Tuyono wrote:
Thank you! There is actually no /w/ so I guess it works.


Oh then that definitely works [:)]

Annoyingly, I couldn't track down any "/v/ with /w/ but not /f/" languages, but I didn't do a huge search.

I found Baure. [:)]


Nice! [:D] Now to find one with /v/, /w/, a voiceless-voiced contrast with other fricatives but no /f/. Even if there isn't one, I'm going to say it's still plausible.

_________________
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 11 Oct 2017, 23:39 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Posts: 2211
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
sangi39 wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:
sangi39 wrote:
Tuyono wrote:
Thank you! There is actually no /w/ so I guess it works.


Oh then that definitely works [:)]

Annoyingly, I couldn't track down any "/v/ with /w/ but not /f/" languages, but I didn't do a huge search.

I found Baure. [:)]


Nice! [:D] Now to find one with /v/, /w/, a voiceless-voiced contrast with other fricatives but no /f/. Even if there isn't one, I'm going to say it's still plausible.

Guaraní has something like that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarani_language

_________________
My metathread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 12 Oct 2017, 23:45 
cuneiform
cuneiform

Joined: Wed 27 May 2015, 19:26
Posts: 122
Working on my conlang by translating stories I've written for the conlang's culture and I've run into an issue with how to translate it (note story quality is low, but this is only a sentence or two or three, so whatever).

"I shall give him a companion to keep him company," the Earth said.

"Shu-i kïs kise sái bis-on ti-es shith sam apum ti-n kit bismun," so Pa-i dáish.
1sg-Abs shall give FUT/IRR companion-Acc 3sg-Dat who INF keep 3sg-Acc in company DEF Earth-Abs say

So I'm not sure how to translate the "to keep him company" snippet. It roughly reads as "who keeps him company" acting perhaps as an adjectival clause, though I was wondering if it should be instead translated as a relative clause, or perhaps handled differently. If an adjectival clause, nothing marks it as one except for context and the infinitive verb, so I'm not sure if that's enough or not.

The Earth gave the man a creature that was very similar to the man. It was a puppy.

So Pa-tin kise-is so shïth-es hiz-i seshithto ti-i njon ttemo klaz so shïth. Ti-i njon al.
DEF Earth-Erg give-Impf DEF man-Dat creature-Abs who.Relative 3sg-Abs COP similar ComparativeArticle DEF man 3sg-Abs COP dog

So the point of confusion here is similar, with wondering how to parse the "that was very similar to the man." Right now, I'm treating it as a relative clause, but again, I'm not sure if that's how I should handle this. Can relative clauses be applied with a copula? Seems like a stupid question, but the grammar of it looks weird for some reason to me, so I want to be sure this makes sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct 2017, 00:35 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Posts: 2331
Location: California
Odkidstr wrote:
"Shu-i kïs kise sái bis-on ti-es shith sam apum ti-n kit bismun," so Pa-i dáish.
1sg-Abs shall give FUT/IRR companion-Acc 3sg-Dat who INF keep 3sg-Acc in company DEF Earth-Abs say

So I'm not sure how to translate the "to keep him company" snippet. It roughly reads as "who keeps him company" acting perhaps as an adjectival clause, though I was wondering if it should be instead translated as a relative clause, or perhaps handled differently. If an adjectival clause, nothing marks it as one except for context and the infinitive verb, so I'm not sure if that's enough or not.
Your gloss contains "who", which suggests a relative clause to me.

Odkidstr wrote:
The Earth gave the man a creature that was very similar to the man. It was a puppy.

So Pa-tin kise-is so shïth-es hiz-i seshithto ti-i njon ttemo klaz so shïth. Ti-i njon al.
DEF Earth-Erg give-Impf DEF man-Dat creature-Abs who.Relative 3sg-Abs COP similar ComparativeArticle DEF man 3sg-Abs COP dog

So the point of confusion here is similar, with wondering how to parse the "that was very similar to the man." Right now, I'm treating it as a relative clause, but again, I'm not sure if that's how I should handle this. Can relative clauses be applied with a copula? Seems like a stupid question, but the grammar of it looks weird for some reason to me, so I want to be sure this makes sense.
A copula can be the main verb of a relative clause. English and many other languages allow this. It's worth noting these languages have verbal copulas. I don't know how your conlang's copula is best analyzed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct 2017, 04:57 
cuneiform
cuneiform

Joined: Wed 27 May 2015, 19:26
Posts: 122
Dormouse559 wrote:
Your gloss contains "who", which suggests a relative clause to me.

A copula can be the main verb of a relative clause. English and many other languages allow this. It's worth noting these languages have verbal copulas. I don't know how your conlang's copula is best analyzed.


The "who" in the first gloss is not actually set as a relative clause, it's simply been used as a pronoun. It does appear that I'm using it like a relative clause though now that I look at it again.

As for the second section, the copula in this language is supposed to be a simple copula (it simply appears as only "njon"). How might languages without verbal copulas handle this? Unless I'm misunderstanding what a verbal copula is, I'm a bit rusty on my terminology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct 2017, 12:41 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Posts: 2211
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Odkidstr wrote:
Working on my conlang by translating stories I've written for the conlang's culture and I've run into an issue with how to translate it (note story quality is low, but this is only a sentence or two or three, so whatever).

"I shall give him a companion to keep him company," the Earth said.

"Shu-i kïs kise sái bis-on ti-es shith sam apum ti-n kit bismun," so Pa-i dáish.
1sg-Abs shall give FUT/IRR companion-Acc 3sg-Dat who INF keep 3sg-Acc in company DEF Earth-Abs say

So I'm not sure how to translate the "to keep him company" snippet. It roughly reads as "who keeps him company" acting perhaps as an adjectival clause, though I was wondering if it should be instead translated as a relative clause, or perhaps handled differently. If an adjectival clause, nothing marks it as one except for context and the infinitive verb, so I'm not sure if that's enough or not.

The Earth gave the man a creature that was very similar to the man. It was a puppy.

So Pa-tin kise-is so shïth-es hiz-i seshithto ti-i njon ttemo klaz so shïth. Ti-i njon al.
DEF Earth-Erg give-Impf DEF man-Dat creature-Abs who.Relative 3sg-Abs COP similar ComparativeArticle DEF man 3sg-Abs COP dog

So the point of confusion here is similar, with wondering how to parse the "that was very similar to the man." Right now, I'm treating it as a relative clause, but again, I'm not sure if that's how I should handle this. Can relative clauses be applied with a copula? Seems like a stupid question, but the grammar of it looks weird for some reason to me, so I want to be sure this makes sense.

Adjectival clause = relative clause. Do you mean an adverbial clause?

It depends on how 'who' behaves.
You can make a clause "in the purpose that he keeps him company" which is a purposive adverbial clause.
" gave him a companion who shall keep him company" is a relative clause.
If it looks like other relative clauses in your language, it should be called a relative clause. The purposive reading is just a pragmatic/contextual interpretation.
But what you call 'who' can well be a complementizer like English "that". In which case it could be called something else, maybe even a complement clause depending on how your verb "give" usually has its arguments.

_________________
My metathread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct 2017, 15:21 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Posts: 2331
Location: California
Odkidstr wrote:
The "who" in the first gloss is not actually set as a relative clause, it's simply been used as a pronoun. It does appear that I'm using it like a relative clause though now that I look at it again.
I figured "who" is a pronoun, more specifically a relative pronoun. The only other meaning for "who" I know of is as an interrogative pronoun. What meaning were you going for?

Odkidstr wrote:
As for the second section, the copula in this language is supposed to be a simple copula (it simply appears as only "njon"). How might languages without verbal copulas handle this? Unless I'm misunderstanding what a verbal copula is, I'm a bit rusty on my terminology.
A verbal copula is a copula that behaves like a verb. English "be" is an example. It sounds like you have a copula particle (which doesn't necessarily contrast with "verbal copula"). How your copula behaves could depend on its etymological origin. If it was originally a verb form, it could act like a verb, at least syntactically. If it was a preposition, it may act like a preposition. For example, maybe all prepositions in a language take a suffix when they head an adjectival phrase (as in "The house on the hill"). A particle copula that emerged from a preposition might take that same suffix as a relativization strategy. (quick example: A house is on a hill = house sit on hill; a house on a hill = house on-REL hill — A dog is an animal = dog COP animal; A dog that is an animal = dog COP-REL animal).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct 2017, 16:24 
fire
fire
User avatar

Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Posts: 5586
Location: SouthEast Michigan
In my conlang there are three degrees of animacy:
0.0 Inanimate -- unable to move under its own power and control
1.0 Vagile animate -- able to freely move its own entire body from one place to another, under its own power and control
0.5 Sessile animate or stabile animate -- able to move under its own power and control, but unable to move its whole body from one place to another under its own power and control.

I don't really know the best terms for degree 0.5 and 1.0.
"Vagile" is related to "vagabond", "vagrant", "vague", "vagus".
Quite a few people distinguish "mobile" from "motile" and think one of them means capable of voluntary movement while the other means capable of movement, but not necessarily voluntary movement. But they disagree which means which.
IIANM some few people think one of them means capable of translocating its entire body while the other only means capable of moving; but IIANM, if that's the case, they also don't agree on which is which. Maybe I misunderstood.

For 1.0, I considered "loco-motive animate" or "auto-mobile animate", as well as "translocatively animate". I think I prefer "vagile animate" to both of those.

An entity can be capable of moving other things than itself -- for instance, the water in which it lives -- under its own power and control; and also be able to move its body from one place to another; but not be vagilely animate.
Consider an artificially intelligent crane1, that, once it's in its work position, can move freight or whatever from wherever it picks it up to wherever it needs to put it down. Imagine that it also has an engine and treads or tracks or wheels by which it can be moved from one worksite to another. It might automatically control its projecting arm or beam, derrick, winch, hoist, davit, block and tackle, etc., to do its day-to-day work, but need to be driven by a human driver from one worksite to another on those infrequent occasions when it needs to be re-located.
That would be "sessile animate" in my conlang.

So my question is:
What are the best terms to call these?

1
Spoiler: show
crane1
krān/
noun
noun: crane; plural noun: cranes
1.
a large, tall machine used for moving heavy objects, typically by suspending them from a projecting arm or beam.
synonyms: derrick, winch, hoist, davit, windlass; block and tackle
"the cargo is lifted by a crane"
a moving platform supporting a television or movie camera.

_________________
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct 2017, 17:17 
earth
earth
User avatar

Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57
Posts: 7099
Quote:
Vagile


[tick]
[+1]

< :lat: vagari 'to move', 'to wander'

4 outta 5 Aussies give it a rousing 'NOICE!'
[:D]

Spoiler: show
BTW, I'm not Aussie, but there is a strange predilection of folks from (Northeast) Philly to pronounce /aj/ as /oj/
E.g. nice /nojs/
time /tojm/
ice /ojs/
mine /mojn/
Flyers /flo.jɚz/ though some here may say /flɔ:.jɚz/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct 2017, 18:20 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Posts: 2211
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Dormouse559 wrote:
Odkidstr wrote:
The "who" in the first gloss is not actually set as a relative clause, it's simply been used as a pronoun. It does appear that I'm using it like a relative clause though now that I look at it again.
I figured "who" is a pronoun, more specifically a relative pronoun. The only other meaning for "who" I know of is as an interrogative pronoun. What meaning were you going for?

It's not English we are analyzing.

_________________
My metathread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 13 Oct 2017, 18:35 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Posts: 2331
Location: California
Omzinesý wrote:
It's not English we are analyzing.
True. I'm analyzing Odkidstr's gloss, which used "who", but apparently not to represent a relative pronoun, so I'm trying to figure out what they meant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct 2017, 04:24 
korean
korean
User avatar

Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Posts: 5915
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu
Any ideas? I have much of an idea of the ways a natlang might transform or get rid of a formality system.
Ahzoh wrote:
So, my proto-lang Haxyakian has a threeway register system, with different sets of personal and demonstrative pronouns for each degree of formality:
https://conworkshop.info/view_article.p ... 5c16b27658
  • Sacred: it is used primarily within religious texts as well as when discussing them but it is also used by monarchs. Lacks third person pronouns and uses archaisms more frequently. The affix -huñ is infixed into verbs.
  • Public/Formal: used for public and open social settings, such as a marketplace or a large bar. The affix -āċdu is suffixed to verbs.
  • Private/Informal: used for private and closed social settings, such as a household, a backalley brawl, or a private business deal between a small number of individuals.

Now, I'm wondering how can I demolish this system to create different pronoun systems in the four Charric languages?
For example, in West Charric, the formal distal pronoun becomes a normal distal pronoun while the informal distal pronoun becomes a normal medial pronoun, while the formal proximal and and sacred distal pronouns become lost (that or the formal proximal singular becomes the accusative case prefix). Also in West Charric, the formal 3rd person plural pronoun becomes a 3rd person plural exclusive pronoun. Lastly, the formal 1st person singular patient and genitive pronouns replace the informal 1st person singular patient and genitive pronouns.

East Charric might preserve it to some degree but shift from an open/private distinction to a seniority-based system.

_________________
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct 2017, 05:06 
cuneiform
cuneiform

Joined: Wed 27 May 2015, 19:26
Posts: 122
Omzinesý wrote:
Adjectival clause = relative clause. Do you mean an adverbial clause?

It depends on how 'who' behaves.
You can make a clause "in the purpose that he keeps him company" which is a purposive adverbial clause.
" gave him a companion who shall keep him company" is a relative clause.
If it looks like other relative clauses in your language, it should be called a relative clause. The purposive reading is just a pragmatic/contextual interpretation.
But what you call 'who' can well be a complementizer like English "that". In which case it could be called something else, maybe even a complement clause depending on how your verb "give" usually has its arguments.


Ah, well for whatever reason I thought those were two separate things (I'm very rusty at the moment, it's been a few months since I was last conlanging). The translation was definitely not a relative clause in the language, as there are separate forms of pronouns when used as a relative pronoun (shith = who [pronoun, as in "who am I" vs seshithto = relative pronoun, as in "the man, who is angry, sat down"). I actually like the idea of it being done as an Adverbial Clause, and that was more what I was trying to go for, but as it stands at the moment it is a relative clause.

In a language that has relative pronouns (hope I'm using the right term; the pronouns we use in English for a relative clause) separated from the pronouns themselves (so a "who" which is used in relative clauses, vs one that isn't), would it be reasonable to divine from context that the non-relative pronoun when used alone and uninflected (which normally it would take case) could stand to mean something like the beginning of the purposive adverbial clause? Seems like a cool feature to me, but I'm not sure if that would make sense.

Dormouse559 wrote:
A verbal copula is a copula that behaves like a verb. English "be" is an example. It sounds like you have a copula particle (which doesn't necessarily contrast with "verbal copula"). How your copula behaves could depend on its etymological origin. If it was originally a verb form, it could act like a verb, at least syntactically. If it was a preposition, it may act like a preposition. For example, maybe all prepositions in a language take a suffix when they head an adjectival phrase (as in "The house on the hill"). A particle copula that emerged from a preposition might take that same suffix as a relativization strategy. (quick example: A house is on a hill = house sit on hill; a house on a hill = house on-REL hill — A dog is an animal = dog COP animal; A dog that is an animal = dog COP-REL animal).


First of all, to be clear, the "who" you were talking about in my gloss was meant to be a pronoun/interrogative pronoun, not a relative pronoun. There is a different form if it's a relative pronoun.

The coupla is indeed a simple particle and, as of now, doesn't take any sort of inflection. I don't have any etymological data as this is an a-priori language that I've created as an exercise and break from my more serious conlangs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 15 Oct 2017, 06:25 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Posts: 2331
Location: California
I think I see a point of confusion. I get the impression from the way you've talked about them that you're treating relative pronouns (head relative clauses) and interrogative pronouns (replace the unknown part of a question) as linked, and additionally that you see interrogatives as more basic than relatives. But there's no inherent connection between relatives and interrogatives. It just happens that English "who" can be either. And neither type of pronoun is necessarily more basic than the other. A relative pronoun can derive from an interrogative or vice versa, or the relatives and interrogatives can be utterly unrelated. Just depends on the language.

Odkidstr wrote:
Ah, well for whatever reason I thought those were two separate things (I'm very rusty at the moment, it's been a few months since I was last conlanging). The translation was definitely not a relative clause in the language, as there are separate forms of pronouns when used as a relative pronoun (shith = who [pronoun, as in "who am I" vs seshithto = relative pronoun, as in "the man, who is angry, sat down"). I actually like the idea of it being done as an Adverbial Clause, and that was more what I was trying to go for, but as it stands at the moment it is a relative clause.
"Shith" may not be a relative pronoun, but I question whether it's an interrogative pronoun in your translation. Interrogative pronouns represent the unknown part of a question, but your translation doesn't seem to contain a question. It's always possible that "shith" is polysemous, i.e. it has an interrogative meaning in some contexts and another in other contexts. That's analogous to English "who".

Odkidstr wrote:
In a language that has relative pronouns (hope I'm using the right term; the pronouns we use in English for a relative clause) separated from the pronouns themselves (so a "who" which is used in relative clauses, vs one that isn't), would it be reasonable to divine from context that the non-relative pronoun when used alone and uninflected (which normally it would take case) could stand to mean something like the beginning of the purposive adverbial clause? Seems like a cool feature to me, but I'm not sure if that would make sense.
Why not? Pronouns can stand in for whole clauses, like "which" in "She saved the dog, which made me happy."

Odkidstr wrote:
The coupla is indeed a simple particle and, as of now, doesn't take any sort of inflection. I don't have any etymological data as this is an a-priori language that I've created as an exercise and break from my more serious conlangs.
Well, to get to my point, whether you do any etymology work or not, you will have an easier time figuring out what's possible for your copula once you decide if it behaves in any way like a certain part of speech and, if so, which one. If it's a verb-y copula, relative clauses should be a natural fit. If it's not, then you may or may not need to think about alternate relativization strategies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 15 Oct 2017, 06:58 
darkness
darkness
User avatar

Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Posts: 3500
Location: Carnassus
I am wondering what might be some logical synchronic changes for the following? I kind of already do the first one without trying, but is it plausible? Might there be a better option? Anyone have ideas for the last two? For the record, this is for Vingdagese, which has phonology and other phonotactics listed here.

ʝ → ɣ / _#

ʝɾ → ? / ?
ʝw → ? / ?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12961 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Solarius and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.