Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2022
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by loglorn » Fri 09 Feb 2018, 16:07

If you think they warrant being analyzed as classes, please do so. Dividing them into classes and explaining each classes' behavior is, if possible, much more descriptive than a plain "irregular" label.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark » Fri 09 Feb 2018, 16:15

loglorn wrote:
Fri 09 Feb 2018, 16:07
If you think they warrant being analyzed as classes, please do so. Dividing them into classes and explaining each classes' behavior is, if possible, much more descriptive than a plain "irregular" label.
I definitely think they are as much classes as Germanic strong verbs are, there just aren’t a ton of them at this point. As I develop the idea further, I will probably add more verbs to those minor classes that are probably “older” in the language (because I imagine these minor classes represent older systems of inflection) and perhaps a few other verbs by analogy.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Location: Ehh

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Parlox » Tue 13 Feb 2018, 02:45

I'm thinking of adding lexical tone to my conlang, Abʘa. It would likely be complicated and resemble Chinese's system. Some information, Abʘa uses a (C)(C)(V)(C) syllable structure, it has 78 consonants and 16 vowels(8 base, 8 long), and usually doesn't allow vowel clusters.

So should i add tone?
  • :con: Cajun, a descendant of French spoken in Louisiana.
  • :con: Bàsupan, loosely inspired by Amharic.
  • :con: Oddúhath Claire, a fusion of Welsh and Arabic.
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gestaltist » Tue 13 Feb 2018, 08:35

Parlox wrote:
Tue 13 Feb 2018, 02:45
I'm thinking of adding lexical tone to my conlang, Abʘa. It would likely be complicated and resemble Chinese's system. Some information, Abʘa uses a (C)(C)(V)(C) syllable structure, it has 78 consonants and 16 vowels(8 base, 8 long), and usually doesn't allow vowel clusters.

So should i add tone?
No. With so many phonemes, your language already sounds a bit kitchen-sinky.
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2017, 20:28
Location: Ehh

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Parlox » Tue 13 Feb 2018, 09:20

gestaltist wrote:
Tue 13 Feb 2018, 08:35
No. With so many phonemes, your language already sounds a bit kitchen-sinky.
Yeah, ok, i'd say thats pretty fair. I'm not too worried about being kitchen-sinky though. I'm trying to make the grammar pretty realistic, to make up for the insane phonology. And i'm thinking of geting rid of all the implosive and labialized consonants anways.
Edit: One more thing, i also really want to implement syllable harmony in AbΘa. Though i probably won't.
  • :con: Cajun, a descendant of French spoken in Louisiana.
  • :con: Bàsupan, loosely inspired by Amharic.
  • :con: Oddúhath Claire, a fusion of Welsh and Arabic.
User avatar
Zekoslav
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat 07 Oct 2017, 15:54

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Zekoslav » Tue 13 Feb 2018, 13:20

So, I am making an Indo-European descendant. I am preserving the Pie. aorist and innovating a new perfect. I can't decide what to do with the Pie. perfect, though.

Should I a) merge it with the aorist, b) merge it with the present, or c) keep it distinct, with the possibility of later loosing it without a trace?
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Tue 13 Feb 2018, 15:22

I say b/c; keep it on as a habitual, with the later possibility of having it become the unmarked present, maybe even losing the IE present altogether (and if you think this is far-fetched, trust me it's nothing compared to what's gone on in Algonquian).
User avatar
Zekoslav
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat 07 Oct 2017, 15:54

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Zekoslav » Tue 13 Feb 2018, 16:21

Frislander wrote:
Tue 13 Feb 2018, 15:22
I say b/c; keep it on as a habitual, with the later possibility of having it become the unmarked present, maybe even losing the IE present altogether (and if you think this is far-fetched, trust me it's nothing compared to what's gone on in Algonquian).
Now that's an interesting suggestion! I have to admit I was leaning on the side of keeping the perfect as a type of present, but it would have never occurred to me to have it replace the original present completely. Could you point me to somewhere where I can learn more about what craziness happened in Algonquian? [:)]
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation
User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 17:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 11:26

Zekoslav wrote:
Tue 13 Feb 2018, 16:21
Frislander wrote:
Tue 13 Feb 2018, 15:22
I say b/c; keep it on as a habitual, with the later possibility of having it become the unmarked present, maybe even losing the IE present altogether (and if you think this is far-fetched, trust me it's nothing compared to what's gone on in Algonquian).
Now that's an interesting suggestion! I have to admit I was leaning on the side of keeping the perfect as a type of present, but it would have never occurred to me to have it replace the original present completely. Could you point me to somewhere where I can learn more about what craziness happened in Algonquian? [:)]
Well it's kind of hard to explain but basically Proto-Algonquian had these TAM categories with rather hazy semantics, but with the main distinction being conjunct vs. independent order (basically subordinate vs. declarative clauses respectively), with radically different inflection patterns for each. Arapaho did a crazy thing and basically took the participle mode of the conjunct order (used to for relative clauses) and made that the form used in positive indicative sentences, and relegated the old independent order to interrogative and negative contexts. There's not much up available freely on the internet about this, but you might want to look for Ives Goddard's Arapaho Historical Morphology.
User avatar
Zekoslav
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat 07 Oct 2017, 15:54

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Zekoslav » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 13:16

Frislander wrote:
Wed 14 Feb 2018, 11:26
Zekoslav wrote:
Tue 13 Feb 2018, 16:21
Frislander wrote:
Tue 13 Feb 2018, 15:22
I say b/c; keep it on as a habitual, with the later possibility of having it become the unmarked present, maybe even losing the IE present altogether (and if you think this is far-fetched, trust me it's nothing compared to what's gone on in Algonquian).
Now that's an interesting suggestion! I have to admit I was leaning on the side of keeping the perfect as a type of present, but it would have never occurred to me to have it replace the original present completely. Could you point me to somewhere where I can learn more about what craziness happened in Algonquian? [:)]
Well it's kind of hard to explain but basically Proto-Algonquian had these TAM categories with rather hazy semantics, but with the main distinction being conjunct vs. independent order (basically subordinate vs. declarative clauses respectively), with radically different inflection patterns for each. Arapaho did a crazy thing and basically took the participle mode of the conjunct order (used to for relative clauses) and made that the form used in positive indicative sentences, and relegated the old independent order to interrogative and negative contexts. There's not much up available freely on the internet about this, but you might want to look for Ives Goddard's Arapaho Historical Morphology.
That's very interesting! It slightly reminds me of many European languages innovating a progressive present based on a participle, which then relegates the old present to another role. However, I will have to try and get my hands upon than book before I can say anything for certain! I'm sorely in need of reading a detailed grammar of a very non-ie. like language.

Your suggestion has helped me confirm my idea to turn the Pie. perfect into a class of present. I am still not sure whether I want to make it a productive class, though: my language is turning out to be agglutinative and crazily expressive to the point of already smelling a bit kitchen-sinky.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10401
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Fri 16 Feb 2018, 03:24

As some of you may remember from a few years ago, the protolanguage for what I call Project Ypsilon had the following affricates:

/p͡ɸ b͡β pː͡ɸ bː͡β p͡ɸː b͡βː t͡θ d͡ð tː͡θ dː͡ð t͡θː d͡ðː t͡s d͡z tː͡s dː͡z t͡sː d͡zː t͡ʃ d͡ʒ tː͡ʃ dː͡ʒ t͡ʃː d͡ʒː k͡x g͡ɣ kː͡x gː͡ɣ k͡xː g͡ɣː/

All obstruents (except /ʔ/) could be phonemically geminated, and affricates had two lengthened forms: one with a geminate stop portion, and another with a geminate fricative portion. Geminates could also occur in essentially any position in a syllable.

I've changed quite a few things now that I'm revising Project Ypsilon. Any consonant can now be geminated (probably except /ʔ/), but geminates are no longer treated as their own phonemes (they are now clusters). Similarly, affricates are no longer phonemes, but instead are formed through homorganic stop + fricative clusters. I still want to allow initial and final geminates, though.

The reason I've come to this thread is that I'm still undecided regarding what to do about all these geminate affricates from the original version of the language. Should I allow for clusters like /tts/ or /kxx/? I think I could even expand this question:

Should I allow clusters where two of the consonants are the same, but the third is different? For example, should clusters like /dʒʒ/, /lls/, /mvv/, and /θθŋ/ be allowed?

This is what I've been thinking:

Pros of allowing /tts/, etc. from my perspective:
  • The two kinds of geminate affricates were a pretty distinctive feature of the original version of the language, I feel, and I like having something distinctive. If I don't use them here, I could still use them elsewhere, but since this will always be my main project, I want to have something distinctive about it.
  • Having a wider variety of clusters can lead to more possibilities in terms of sound changes when I derive descendants from this protolanguage.
Cons of allowing /tts/, etc. from my perspective:
  • I don't want the phonotactics to be too complicated. Not allowing these clusters would simplify things.
  • I don't know if I like the way they look and, to a lesser degree, sound, aesthetically. Especially in writing, there's something "clunky" about them, for lack of a better term.
Anyway, I would really appreciate any input from the community on this, especially since I don't want to get stuck on this and stop making progress. Thanks in advance.
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat 01 Mar 2014, 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn » Fri 16 Feb 2018, 03:49

shimobaatar wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 03:24
Anyway, I would really appreciate any input from the community on this, especially since I don't want to get stuck on this and stop making progress. Thanks in advance.
In my opinion, I'd say drop them. They definitely seem a little too clunky for me.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4630
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » Fri 16 Feb 2018, 05:43

shimobaatar wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 03:24
As some of you may remember from a few years ago, the protolanguage for what I call Project Ypsilon had the following affricates:

/p͡ɸ b͡β pː͡ɸ bː͡β p͡ɸː b͡βː t͡θ d͡ð tː͡θ dː͡ð t͡θː d͡ðː t͡s d͡z tː͡s dː͡z t͡sː d͡zː t͡ʃ d͡ʒ tː͡ʃ dː͡ʒ t͡ʃː d͡ʒː k͡x g͡ɣ kː͡x gː͡ɣ k͡xː g͡ɣː/
I remember. [:)]
I still want to allow initial and final geminates, though.

The reason I've come to this thread is that I'm still undecided regarding what to do about all these geminate affricates from the original version of the language. Should I allow for clusters like /tts/ or /kxx/? I think I could even expand this question:

Should I allow clusters where two of the consonants are the same, but the third is different? For example, should clusters like /dʒʒ/, /lls/, /mvv/, and /θθŋ/ be allowed?
Yes, I think you should allow them, because they’ve been such a salient feature of Ypsilon since its conception. Furthermore, since you want initial and final geminates, i think both AAB and ABB clusters can be expected.

As to their nature, here are my thoughts:
- AAB clusters such tts would simply be that, a geminate coda followed by a simple onset.
- ABB clusters on the other hand might be more interesting. They might be syllabified in two different ways: a) affricate coda + fricative onset [ats.sa] (my conlang TLFKAT permits this); b) stop coda + syllabic/moraic fricative + fricative onset [at.s.sa] (occurs in Blackfoot and my conlangs Limestone and (maybe) Híí)

Now, as to aesthetic, I think your fears of “clunkiness” are valid, but there are ways to get around that in my opinion.
- you could have restrictions on the heavy syllables occurring in succession, with lenition processes operating to prevent things like etxxellp from occurring. For instance, there might be a restriction that prohibits a geminate onset and coda tautosyllabically.
etxxellp → etxellp
etxxellp → etxxelp
etxxellp → etxxeyellp

- these heavy syllables might only occur in roots, or as part of a stem gradation process, and therefore not in any affixes. This would probably restrict their occurrence to one, or occasionally, two clusters per word. I find it a good rule of thumb in my languages to have no more than one heavy cluster for every 3-4 syllables. This is of course a matter of taste.
- the above kind of assumed Ypsilon has a high syllable-to-word ratio; if your words are generally short, I would say these clusters would go a long way toward making your language not look flat: sth like yutssa in ibbvere nata ye akššu could make for a great aesthetic imo.

Just some thoughts. Highly subjective of course. [:D]
User avatar
cedh
metal
metal
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed 07 Sep 2011, 21:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by cedh » Fri 16 Feb 2018, 13:37

shimobaatar wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 03:24
I still want to allow initial and final geminates, though.

The reason I've come to this thread is that I'm still undecided regarding what to do about all these geminate affricates from the original version of the language. Should I allow for clusters like /tts/ or /kxx/? I think I could even expand this question:

Should I allow clusters where two of the consonants are the same, but the third is different? For example, should clusters like /dʒʒ/, /lls/, /mvv/, and /θθŋ/ be allowed?
You could also draw up some restrictions as to the types of AAB and ABB clusters allowed in the language. For example:

- geminated nasals and liquids might only be allowed in position A (this would allow /lls/ but not /sll/)
- geminated voiced fricatives might only be allowed in position B, and possibly only if A is voiced (this would allow /dʒʒ/ but not /ʒʒd/)
- geminated voiceless fricatives might only be allowed if the other consonant is a voiceless plosive (this would allow /θθk/ but not /θθŋ/)
- A and B might not both be plosives (this would allow /stt/ but not /ktt/)
- etc...
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10401
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Sat 24 Feb 2018, 04:29

Sorry for taking so long to respond here. Thank you all for your input! It was very helpful!
DesEsseintes wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 05:43
I remember. [:)]
[:D]
DesEsseintes wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 05:43
As to their nature, here are my thoughts:
- AAB clusters such tts would simply be that, a geminate coda followed by a simple onset.
- ABB clusters on the other hand might be more interesting. They might be syllabified in two different ways: a) affricate coda + fricative onset [ats.sa] (my conlang TLFKAT permits this); b) stop coda + syllabic/moraic fricative + fricative onset [at.s.sa] (occurs in Blackfoot and my conlangs Limestone and (maybe) Híí)
Interesting. This is definitely something I'll have to think more about, especially when I get around to prosody and syllable boundaries when multiple syllables collide.
DesEsseintes wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 05:43
- you could have restrictions on the heavy syllables occurring in succession, with lenition processes operating to prevent things like etxxellp from occurring. For instance, there might be a restriction that prohibits a geminate onset and coda tautosyllabically.
etxxellp → etxellp
etxxellp → etxxelp
etxxellp → etxxeyellp
Oh, I like these ideas!

I like all three options, actually, so my first thought was to just use a different one in each daughter language, but then I remembered that the whole point of this is to make the protolanguage less clunky, so I'll have to pick one. [:$] I'll probably use the first one.
DesEsseintes wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 05:43
- these heavy syllables might only occur in roots, or as part of a stem gradation process, and therefore not in any affixes. This would probably restrict their occurrence to one, or occasionally, two clusters per word. I find it a good rule of thumb in my languages to have no more than one heavy cluster for every 3-4 syllables. This is of course a matter of taste.
- the above kind of assumed Ypsilon has a high syllable-to-word ratio; if your words are generally short, I would say these clusters would go a long way toward making your language not look flat: sth like yutssa in ibbvere nata ye akššu could make for a great aesthetic imo.
More good points. For what it's worth, the language is going to be suffixing, but I don't know how long words are going to get yet.

Also can I steal these example words you've given me? [:P]
cedh wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 13:37
You could also draw up some restrictions as to the types of AAB and ABB clusters allowed in the language. For example:

- geminated nasals and liquids might only be allowed in position A (this would allow /lls/ but not /sll/)
- geminated voiced fricatives might only be allowed in position B, and possibly only if A is voiced (this would allow /dʒʒ/ but not /ʒʒd/)
- geminated voiceless fricatives might only be allowed if the other consonant is a voiceless plosive (this would allow /θθk/ but not /θθŋ/)
- A and B might not both be plosives (this would allow /stt/ but not /ktt/)
- etc...
Excellent suggestion! I assume you wouldn't mind if I used these?
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4630
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » Sat 24 Feb 2018, 09:49

shimobaatar wrote:
Sat 24 Feb 2018, 04:29
DesEsseintes wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 05:43

etxxellp → etxellp
etxxellp → etxxelp
etxxellp → etxxeyellp
Oh, I like these ideas!

I like all three options, actually, so my first thought was to just use a different one in each daughter language, but then I remembered that the whole point of this is to make the protolanguage less clunky, so I'll have to pick one. [:$] I'll probably use the first one.
You could also have different strategies in different environments. Regardless, I’m glad if you can take sth fro it.
DesEsseintes wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 05:43
yutssa in ibbvere nata ye akššu could make for a great aesthetic imo.
Also can I steal these example words you've given me? [:P]
Please do! [:D]
User avatar
Pabappa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:41
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Pabappa » Sat 24 Feb 2018, 18:00

I like this idea. One more question: can *all three* consonants be the same? Estonian and some other Uralic languages allow triple stops and certain other consonants.
Image
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10401
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » Sat 24 Feb 2018, 18:12

DesEsseintes wrote:
Sat 24 Feb 2018, 09:49
You could also have different strategies in different environments. Regardless, I’m glad if you can take sth fro it.
Oh, now that's an idea! More to consider, definitely.
DesEsseintes wrote:
Sat 24 Feb 2018, 09:49
Please do! [:D]
Yay! I particularly like akššu.
Pabappa wrote:
Sat 24 Feb 2018, 18:00
I like this idea. One more question: can *all three* consonants be the same? Estonian and some other Uralic languages allow triple stops and certain other consonants.
Thank you! [:D]

I am aware, but as much as I like the Uralic languages, I don't think I'll allow that in this language, at least not at this stage.
User avatar
cedh
metal
metal
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed 07 Sep 2011, 21:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by cedh » Sat 24 Feb 2018, 21:10

shimobaatar wrote:
Sat 24 Feb 2018, 04:29
cedh wrote:
Fri 16 Feb 2018, 13:37
You could also draw up some restrictions as to the types of AAB and ABB clusters allowed in the language. For example:

- geminated nasals and liquids might only be allowed in position A (this would allow /lls/ but not /sll/)
- geminated voiced fricatives might only be allowed in position B, and possibly only if A is voiced (this would allow /dʒʒ/ but not /ʒʒd/)
- geminated voiceless fricatives might only be allowed if the other consonant is a voiceless plosive (this would allow /θθk/ but not /θθŋ/)
- A and B might not both be plosives (this would allow /stt/ but not /ktt/)
- etc...
Excellent suggestion! I assume you wouldn't mind if I used these?
Just go ahead! :-)
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 11:00

I'm simulating a lot of different vowel changes for Pelsodian:

/i i: u u:/ > /ɪ i: ʊ u:/ > /e i ɯ u/ > /e i ɨ u/ > /e i y u/
/e e: o o:/ > /ɛ e: ɔ o:/ > /ɛ e ɤ o/ > /ɛ e ɵ? o/ > /e e ø o/
/a a:/ > /ɐ a:/ > /ɒ a/ > /o a/ > /o a/

Essentially I want to go from the Vulgar Latin system to something very Hungarianesque, with front rounded vowels and perhaps a distinction in vowel length. However I believe in the stages between I would gain /ɯ/ due to influence from Old Hungarian (which also had the vowel) and the languages of the Pannonian Avars. I don't know how realistic the above changes are though. Yay or nay?
My Blog
Current Projects:
Mannish — A North Germanic language spoken on the Calf of Man
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
Post Reply