New CBB

It's fine if you do, regardless of what part of speech they belong to that you've withheld.

_________________
Up in blue sky silly blimp goes by
Where it come from where it go
Ziggy-Zaggy it fly high

Okay.

(I had been trying to get back to the stage where I only post updates once I have more than a paper-page of data to add to the conlang - that both cuts down on the "new post with only three lines"...and also encourages my creativity)

Should I add fricatives to Keoriki?

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

I have a personal love of fricatives.
Remember that all phoneme need not occur with equal frequency; if you're unsure, you can add them and simply use them sparingly.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

Should I use negative affixes on nouns, as opposed to verbs? I don't know of any natlangs which do this, but, conceptually, I think it should make sense in most cases.

It's difficult not to pack my langs full of them!

_________________
___________________ I am the Great Rabbit. Fear me, O Crabs!

Yes, you can try

German uses the nominal negation much more than English "Ich bin kein Mann" 'I'm not a man.'
If you have a scope of the negation, nominal negation is easy to attach to it. But if you have a just a (definite) subject: "The man (that doesn't exist) sleaps/The man doesn't sleap" are not the same. Of course you can use it in the form of your lang and ignore the semantic oddity.

Are thinking of having the nominal negation replacing clausal/verbal negation? That would be a bit weird, and I don't know whether it's attested in natlangs. But if you are thinking of having nominal negation together with verbal/clausal negation? That's extremely common - in fact, I think Wateu is rather unusual in not having any kind of nominal negation. (To say something like "I love nobody", you'll have to say something like "There does not exist any person that I love".)

Once you include nominal negation, there are a few things you need to decide about. How should the nominal negation interact with verbal/clausal negation? Especially, should you allow for double negation, or even make it obligatory? Should the nominal negation affix or word be the same as the verbal/clausal negator?

One further option exists. Negative affixes on nouns may be a kind of verbal/clausal negation (=their scope is the whole clause), only that they are attached to the nouns rather than the verb.

_________________
constructedlanguages.net

I was planning on having nominal negation only- no verbal negations, except in the occasional verb which is a "negated" version of another verb (I can't think of a good example, but something like English "run" versus "crawl"). I considered having clausal negation by the noun affixes, and I'm still willing to, but I think there could be some semantic fun in nominal negation.


From your example, consider "Not I sleep," this would be one way to negate the noun, showing that "I" did not sleep, while implying that other people do sleep; which is roughly equivalent to saying "I didn't sleep;" if asked "What did you do?", you would respond either "Not-me slept," implying that sleeping was an action which others were doing when you were not, or "I was awake", the positive equivalent of "I didn't sleep". If, then, you needed to say "Nobody doesn't sleep", you would have to either convert it to "Everybody sleeps", or say something like "Nobody stays awake." Does that make sense, or is there still some semantic quirks I've left uncovered?

Sounds reasonable.
'Not I' is, of course, a hypothetical object because there isn't anybody that does exactly what you don't.

My Gorrim, by the way, hasn't negation at all. The negation lies in the verb semantics, like "fail" "ignore"...

I have a new phonology (somewhat based on Somali if somebody is interested) That's just the stops:

1. t’ t͡ʃ k’ q’ (or pharyngeal, I'm not sure)
2. [p][β]b], [t][ð][d], [k][ɣ][ɡ], [q][ʁ][ɢ]
3. ɓ ɗ ɗ͡ʒ ɠ

The problem is the romanization. There are three series of stops in that lang and only two in the roman alphabet. The series 2. is the most frequent so I think it should have a simple letter, but should it be marked with a voiced or voiceless series <t> or <d>? They have both voiced and voiceless allophones. [p] word-initially and word-finally, [b] after nasals and [β] in the other places.

I don't think you need separate letters for the conditional allophones. If [p] becomes [b] only after nasals and nowhere else, I think you could represent it with p. You could use <b d g> for the implosives and <t' k' q' > for the ejectives/pharyngeals.

_________________
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously

Somehow I didn't notice this thread before. I've posted a thread in this subforum about a rather odd alienesque language I've been thinking of, and I'd greatly appreciate any comments or criticism people can offer.

Now, Vtain has theree paradigms of number/referentaility: irreferential, singular referential, and plural referentail. These are expressed by prtmanteau mophs with cases. Would I still add the paucal referentail number?

I don't see why not; neither do I see why. Give it a shot and let us see it.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

This is the coin throwing thread!

Should I use [e] or [ə] for <e> in Arimaspean Creole? (now that part of its substrate includes German)

Is there any reason why you couldn't represent both with <e>?

_________________
<äʒƺçķļ>
<áéíóú>

None that I can think of. (lit. I never thought of it like that - I thought that sort of thing would be "making it Englishy")

both it'll be then. thank you.

Xing's last option is exactly the way Géarthnuns operates. When I initially started explaining this to people back in the day (read: high school), it got the response that Omzinesý gave you, namely, that "The not-man/no-man sleeps." is not necessarily the same as "The man doesn't sleep." Once I broke free of the "negating the noun" concept and just looked it as "marking negation on the noun", all of the crises ontologiques happily vanished. If having things yaw in and out of existence mid-sentence is "fun" for you, I'll leave you to it, but I found that a lot more trouble than it was worth. With nouns marking overall clausal negation, Géarthnuns has developed various gizmos to tweak polarity as need be over the course of an utterance, but your strategies/results may vary.

_________________
☯道可道,非常道
☯名可名,非常名