Definitely think I'm going to do it then . 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?qwed117 wrote: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.Frislander wrote: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!shimobaatar wrote: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!loglorn wrote:If it suits your fancy. Go at it for sure.
Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]
Re: Yay or Nay?
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Yay or Nay?
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.All4Ɇn wrote:Definitely think I'm going to do it then . 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?
Re: Yay or Nay?
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.Frislander wrote: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.All4Ɇn wrote:Definitely think I'm going to do it then . 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?
I can give you the 420 page pdf on chamic that I can access via my school.
Spoiler:
Re: Yay or Nay?
Ooh that's a great idea. Didn't think of that one at all. I'd love to see what you've got on itqwed117 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.
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
I think I like this method the best.felipesnark wrote: I could also base them on the distal determiner forms that contain *-uj(e) /ud͡ʒe/ and use -u
PastCode: Select all
sg. pl. 1 -tu -ndu 2 -mu -methu 3 -su -ksu
Re: Yay or Nay?
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9P0d ... 1Y3TFBWY2cAll4Ɇn wrote:Ooh that's a great idea. Didn't think of that one at all. I'd love to see what you've got on itqwed117 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.
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:
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Yay or Nay?
Beautiful! I must get a read of it when I have the time!qwed117 wrote:https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9P0d ... 1Y3TFBWY2cAll4Ɇn wrote:Ooh that's a great idea. Didn't think of that one at all. I'd love to see what you've got on itqwed117 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.
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)
Re: Yay or Nay?
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?
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?
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
No worries about the timing of your posts!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?
I'd make it irregular and use "slógt/slog".
Re: Yay or Nay?
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.shimobaatar wrote:No worries about the timing of your posts!
I'd make it irregular and use "slógt/slog".
-
- sinic
- Posts: 413
- Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
- Contact:
Re: Yay or Nay?
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.shimobaatar wrote:I think I like this method the best.felipesnark wrote: I could also base them on the distal determiner forms that contain *-uj(e) /ud͡ʒe/ and use -u
PastCode: Select all
sg. pl. 1 -tu -ndu 2 -mu -methu 3 -su -ksu
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs: http://grwilliams.net/ It's a work in progress!
Re: Yay or Nay?
Since this got no responses in the Learran thread, maybe it's more appropriate to place this here
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
(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.
Here's an in depth explanation of the changes the are listedMe 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
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:
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:
Re: Yay or Nay?
I say yay to all of themqwed117 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
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
felipesnark wrote:I like the idea of having an etymology for at least some of the inflections.
1. I'd say yea. It sounds like vowel length won't be phonemic, though, or am I reading that wrong?qwed117 wrote:Here's an in depth explanation of the changes the are listed
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"?
Re: Yay or Nay?
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 possibilityshimobaatar wrote:felipesnark wrote:I like the idea of having an etymology for at least some of the inflections.
1. I'd say yea. It sounds like vowel length won't be phonemic, though, or am I reading that wrong?qwed117 wrote:Here's an in depth explanation of the changes the are listed
[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: 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].
I should be clearer in my terminology. Basically, I want to add forms that are homophonous under certain situations.shimobaatar wrote: 5. What do you mean by "adding new forms that are largely allophonic"?
Spoiler:
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Yay or Nay?
I think the word you may be looking for here is syncretism.qwed117 wrote:I should be clearer in my terminology. Basically, I want to add forms that are homophonous under certain situations.shimobaatar wrote: 5. What do you mean by "adding new forms that are largely allophonic"?
Re: Yay or Nay?
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.
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
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Yay or Nay?
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.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.
Re: Yay or Nay?
They're both justifiable one way or whatever and I also prefer the first.
- WeepingElf
- greek
- Posts: 531
- Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Yay or Nay?
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
My conlang pages