Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

qwed117 wrote:
Frislander wrote:
shimobaatar wrote:
loglorn wrote:If it suits your fancy. Go at it for sure.
Yeah, I'd say definitely go for it! Knowing the languages you've made so far, All4Ɇn, I'm confident it will turn out great!
It'd certainly be pretty unique as conlangs go. In fact, I think we've yet to see a conlang use it at all. Go for it!
Devil's dissent: You might as well go a prior. All three are extremely poorly reconstructed (especially if you choose to make your language straight from the reconstruction, and not from a famous branch.
Definitely think I'm going to do it then [:D] . What do you think about it being reconstructed from Proto-Tai? Do you think there's enough info on that one to suffice for an entire language?
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander »

All4Ɇn wrote:Definitely think I'm going to do it then [:D] . What do you think about it being reconstructed from Proto-Tai? Do you think there's enough info on that one to suffice for an entire language?
Honestly I reckon you might actually have a better time with Malayo-Polynesian, but you're going to have a hard time finding full reconstructions in all three cases. I can only manage an Algonquian language because I happen to know someone on the ZBB who is at university and has access to resources on algonquian languages I otherwise wouldn't have access to. If you can find someone who has such information on one of the proto-languages then you'll probably be alright, but if you don't you might have a hard time.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 »

Frislander wrote:
All4Ɇn wrote:Definitely think I'm going to do it then [:D] . What do you think about it being reconstructed from Proto-Tai? Do you think there's enough info on that one to suffice for an entire language?
Honestly I reckon you might actually have a better time with Malayo-Polynesian, but you're going to have a hard time finding full reconstructions in all three cases. I can only manage an Algonquian language because I happen to know someone on the ZBB who is at university and has access to resources on algonquian languages I otherwise wouldn't have access to. If you can find someone who has such information on one of the proto-languages then you'll probably be alright, but if you don't you might have a hard time.
As Frislander said, all three aren't well reconstructed, like Latin, PIE or Germanic. Even Proto-Tai isnt well reconstructed. My suggestion would be to model it off of Proto-Chamic. It's just the right area.
I can give you the 420 page pdf on chamic that I can access via my school.
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

qwed117 wrote:As Frislander said, all three aren't well reconstructed, like Latin, PIE or Germanic. Even Proto-Tai isnt well reconstructed. My suggestion would be to model it off of Proto-Chamic. It's just the right area.
I can give you the 420 page pdf on chamic that I can access via my school.
Ooh that's a great idea. Didn't think of that one at all. I'd love to see what you've got on it
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 10373
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: UTC-04:00

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar »

felipesnark wrote: I could also base them on the distal determiner forms that contain *-uj(e) /ud͡ʒe/ and use -u

Past

Code: Select all

 sg. pl.
1 -tu -ndu
2 -mu -methu
3 -su -ksu
I think I like this method the best.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 »

All4Ɇn wrote:
qwed117 wrote:As Frislander said, all three aren't well reconstructed, like Latin, PIE or Germanic. Even Proto-Tai isnt well reconstructed. My suggestion would be to model it off of Proto-Chamic. It's just the right area.
I can give you the 420 page pdf on chamic that I can access via my school.
Ooh that's a great idea. Didn't think of that one at all. I'd love to see what you've got on it
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9P0d ... 1Y3TFBWY2c
Surprisingly 400+ pages is compressed into only 30 MB. Go figure.

Now I want to read it too.

Sorry it took so long; my computer hasn't been working properly, and while the fan is now working, the left side of the keyboard isn't working (qweasdzxc)
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander »

qwed117 wrote:
All4Ɇn wrote:
qwed117 wrote:As Frislander said, all three aren't well reconstructed, like Latin, PIE or Germanic. Even Proto-Tai isnt well reconstructed. My suggestion would be to model it off of Proto-Chamic. It's just the right area.
I can give you the 420 page pdf on chamic that I can access via my school.
Ooh that's a great idea. Didn't think of that one at all. I'd love to see what you've got on it
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9P0d ... 1Y3TFBWY2c
Surprisingly 400+ pages is compressed into only 30 MB. Go figure.

Now I want to read it too.

Sorry it took so long; my computer hasn't been working properly, and while the fan is now working, the left side of the keyboard isn't working (qweasdzxc)
Beautiful! I must get a read of it when I have the time!
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

Sorry for posting this so soon after the last one but I wasn't sure if I should post this in the Thrinn thread or not. Right now the verb Slahen is simply a strong verb with the following principal parts:
Present: þu slähet, hir släh, hir slahen
Past: þu slohet, hir sloh, hir slohen
Past subjunctive: þu slöher, hir slöhe, hir slöhen
Past participle: slaher

But even though I've had it like this for a long time I'm thinking about changing it into an irregular verb with the following forms:
Present: þu slät, hir slä, hir slahen
Past: þu slógt or þu slot, hir slog or hir slo, hir slogen
Past subjunctive: þu slöger, hir slöge, hir slögen
Past participle: slager

Should I go with the new paradigm or simply keep it as is? And if I do change it should I go with slot/slo or slógt/slog?
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 10373
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: UTC-04:00

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar »

All4Ɇn wrote:Sorry for posting this so soon after the last one but I wasn't sure if I should post this in the Thrinn thread or not. Right now the verb Slahen is simply a strong verb with the following principal parts:
Present: þu slähet, hir släh, hir slahen
Past: þu slohet, hir sloh, hir slohen
Past subjunctive: þu slöher, hir slöhe, hir slöhen
Past participle: slaher

But even though I've had it like this for a long time I'm thinking about changing it into an irregular verb with the following forms:
Present: þu slät, hir slä, hir slahen
Past: þu slógt or þu slot, hir slog or hir slo, hir slogen
Past subjunctive: þu slöger, hir slöge, hir slögen
Past participle: slager

Should I go with the new paradigm or simply keep it as is? And if I do change it should I go with slot/slo or slógt/slog?
No worries about the timing of your posts!

I'd make it irregular and use "slógt/slog".
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

shimobaatar wrote:No worries about the timing of your posts!

I'd make it irregular and use "slógt/slog".
I definitely think I'm going to go with making it irregular. Still not entirely sure which side I'm on but leaning towards slo myself right now. Given the conjugations of similar verbs, slo seems like by far the most likely choice but that doesn't necessarily make the it better option.
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 413
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by felipesnark »

shimobaatar wrote:
felipesnark wrote: I could also base them on the distal determiner forms that contain *-uj(e) /ud͡ʒe/ and use -u

Past

Code: Select all

 sg. pl.
1 -tu -ndu
2 -mu -methu
3 -su -ksu
I think I like this method the best.
Thanks for the feedback! I decided to go with your suggestion. I like the idea of having an etymology for at least some of the inflections.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs: http://grwilliams.net/ It's a work in progress!
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 »

Since this got no responses in the Learran thread, maybe it's more appropriate to place this here
Me on the Learran Thread wrote:Hmm, all of a sudden, I'm debating whether or not to revamp the language, and add a significant amount of change

Here are my ideas
  • Redeveloping some degree of Latin's length distinctions1
  • Adding new phonemes (x, ɾ at the top of the list, followed by ə œ y ʉ and ɲ )2
  • Re-extending the system of vowel change (in conjunction with the prior)3
  • Adding more huc derivations 4
  • Adding cases distinguished by the prefixed article 5
Here's an in depth explanation of the changes the are listed

1. Redevelopment of length distinctions
I right now am thinking of lengthening based on the following letter and syllable. Final syllables with likely be automatically lengthened. So my current thought is that certain finals (likely e and o) will be lost except for certain circumstances where it's preferable. Next the consonants b d g s v z cause a lengthening when following a vowel. The consonants p r l ʃ cause a lengthening when in a cluster following the vowel.

2. ə will likely develop from the vowels a e o when strongly unstressed. Strongly unstressed syllables are syllables that aren't final, initial or stressed. One good example is spīritum > 'spiretu >spirătu. Another point is extending the occurrence of ɨ, which might be extended by having e, i, o, u finals all decompose to ɨ. This produces some interesting apophonic changes. I'm also considering moving away from ts towards t́
spirătu > spirăt́ë
spirătu +unu > spirătunu

The rounded vowels maybe generated through some monophthongization or diphthong collapse along with l-vocalization. ɲ from palatized n's. x may develop from certain finals and clusters devoicing. It won't be orthographically shown, but hey... ɾ will come from intervocalic d t and certain l's

3. The bulk of the current vowel changes are uninspiring, and honestly, rather boring and incredulous at best.
Here's a brief transcript
Spoiler:
u/o/'(C)(C)(C)_C[C#]
o/jo/'(C)(C)(C)_(C)(C)(C)F
o/u/'(C)(C)(C)_(C)(C)(C)u
o/wo/'(C)(C)(C)_/_[rl]
e/i/'(C)(C)(C)_(C)(C)(C)i
e/je/'(C)(C)(C)_/_[rl]
ē/ea/'(C)(C)(C)_
e/e*/'(C)(C)(C)_
e/ï/C_(')C/_
(I know my orthography is horrible inconsistent)
Right now only major thing is a diphthongization (o > wo, e > je) that shouts "Venetian" and a diphthongization (o> jo) that really just says "wut". The best thing here is the o>u change. But I'm sure I can make this more convincing with some consonantal effect, or possibly creating jï glides (here equivalent to jə)

4. Huc is the distinctive feature of the language, but right now the word is only used in certain particles: cłau (clam + huc), eu (et+huc), seu (sic +huc), preu (prae/per +huc), pur (pro+huc). I'll need to extend the use throughout the language. One possibility is using it in limited phrases as uc or u. Another is adding it to demonstratives, which basically is a given that I just haven't got to codifying.

5. In reality, Romanian only rarely differentiates casing, and only in the feminine (to my knowledge at least). The current system I've provided differentiates it in plenty of circumstances. All the spots on the chart are different, to say it simply. I don't know if I should go for extending the chart and adding new forms that are largely allophonic, or if I should simplify the ones that already exist.
Last edited by qwed117 on 18 Apr 2017 03:32, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

qwed117 wrote:Here are my ideas
  • Redeveloping some degree of Latin's length distinctions
  • Adding new phonemes (x, ɾ at the top of the list, followed by ə œ y ʉ and ɲ )
  • Re-extending the system of vowel change (in conjunction with the prior)
  • Adding more huc derivations
  • Adding cases distinguished by the prefixed article
I say yay to all of them
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 10373
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: UTC-04:00

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar »

felipesnark wrote:I like the idea of having an etymology for at least some of the inflections.
[+1]

qwed117 wrote:Here's an in depth explanation of the changes the are listed
1. I'd say yea. It sounds like vowel length won't be phonemic, though, or am I reading that wrong?

2. Regarding the introduction of [ə], I'd say yea. Regarding the introduction of [ɨ], however, I'd say nay. If you mean you're thinking of using <t́> in place of <ts>, I'm strongly opposed to that, personally, but if you really like it, then whatever. Finally, I'd say yea to the development of [x ɾ œ y ʉ ɲ].

3. I'd say yea.

4. I'd say yea.

5. What do you mean by "adding new forms that are largely allophonic"?
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 »

shimobaatar wrote:
felipesnark wrote:I like the idea of having an etymology for at least some of the inflections.
[+1]

qwed117 wrote:Here's an in depth explanation of the changes the are listed
1. I'd say yea. It sounds like vowel length won't be phonemic, though, or am I reading that wrong?
I'm already creating rules that make it non-phonemic. I'm still deciding on how the vowel lengths really come into play. It might become phonemic if VC# > VːC and VCe> VC, which is still a possibility
shimobaatar wrote: 2. Regarding the introduction of [ə], I'd say yea. Regarding the introduction of [ɨ], however, I'd say nay. If you mean you're thinking of using <t́> in place of <ts>, I'm strongly opposed to that, personally, but if you really like it, then whatever. Finally, I'd say yea to the development of [x ɾ œ y ʉ ɲ].
[ɨ] is already in the language. The question is whether or not the range of the phoneme, and the processes that produce it extend. I don't really want to use <t́>, but I see no way to show /z/ that doesn't create an abomination like g-cedilla. Maybe I'll use orthographic rules with q? I don't particularly like that solution, but it may be the only way to deal with it.
shimobaatar wrote: 5. What do you mean by "adding new forms that are largely allophonic"?
I should be clearer in my terminology. Basically, I want to add forms that are homophonous under certain situations.
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander »

qwed117 wrote:
shimobaatar wrote: 5. What do you mean by "adding new forms that are largely allophonic"?
I should be clearer in my terminology. Basically, I want to add forms that are homophonous under certain situations.
I think the word you may be looking for here is syncretism.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4082
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý »

Should Vålkakil transitive verb pattern be

1. Stem - object marker - subject marker

Lűpan 'I love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta-t 'You love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta
Lűp-ta-me
Lűp-ta-te
Lűp-ta-k

Or
2. Stem - subject marker - object marker

Lűpan (<- lűpa-m-ta) 'I love him/her/it/them.'
Lűpa-t-ta 'You love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta
Lűp-me-ta
Lűp-te-ta
Lűp-k-ta

The paradigms undergo some morpho-phonemic changes, but that gives the basic idea.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander »

Omzinesý wrote:Should Vålkakil transitive verb pattern be

1. Stem - object marker - subject marker

Lűpan 'I love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta-t 'You love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta
Lűp-ta-me
Lűp-ta-te
Lűp-ta-k

Or
2. Stem - subject marker - object marker

Lűpan (<- lűpa-m-ta) 'I love him/her/it/them.'
Lűpa-t-ta 'You love him/her/it/them.'
Lűp-ta
Lűp-me-ta
Lűp-te-ta
Lűp-k-ta

The paradigms undergo some morpho-phonemic changes, but that gives the basic idea.
Depends what you want to come first diachronically. I'd say the first looks nicer, but if the subject marking is older I'd put that first instead.
User avatar
MrKrov
banned
Posts: 1929
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 02:47
Location: /ai/ > /a:/
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by MrKrov »

They're both justifiable one way or whatever and I also prefer the first.
User avatar
WeepingElf
greek
greek
Posts: 531
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by WeepingElf »

I'd prefer the first; I have it in Old Albic, too. But as Frislander says, it is a matter of diachrony.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
My conlang pages
Locked