Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]

[DesEsseintes]

In the minimalist interpretation, New Limestone has the following consonant inventory:

/m n/
/p t k ʔ/
/s ɬ x/
/r j w/

Now that I've been playing with the inventory for several days, I find I'm not too keen on nasals and want to restrict them, though I'm hesitant to go all the Pawnee way and eliminate them altogether, so I've hit on a possible solution.

There will be no phonemes /m n/ but geminate /w r/ manifest as mm nn. These also occur word-initially but simplify to m n. Thus all of m n w are distinguished word-initially (single r elides in that position), but medially they are in complementary distribution depending on length. This will be apparent when prefixes occur.

/riiwa/ → iiwa
/a + riiwa/ → ariiwa
/rriiwa/ → niiwa
/a + rriiwa/ → anniiwa

/watsiri/ → watsiri
/a + watsiri/ → awatsiri
/wwatsiri/ → matsiri
/a + wwatsiri/ → ammatsiri
etc.

This does have the wonderful benefit of reducing the consonant inventory to ten segments, but I will lose out on word forms like áínimiiwa.

Y/N?

[Frislander]

I say yay: it's an interesting touch, and it pulls your language away from being mainly Blackfoot in a more Siouan direction.

Also if you're going to permit underlying word-initial geminates for the sonorants, do you plan to do so for the other consonants as well?

[DesEsseintes]

I say yay: it's an interesting touch, and it pulls your language away from being mainly Blackfoot in a more Caddoan direction.

Also if you're going to permit underlying word-initial geminates for the sonorants, do you plan to do so for the other consonants as well?

Yes, or rather maybe it's a bit more complex.

In fact, what may be happening is that there is actually an underlying initial vowel that gets elided when the following consonant is a geminate s ł x r y w (so /rriiwa/ is sth like /Vrriiwa/ rather, but I don't know the quality of V). Details remain to be worked out if I choose to go for this option, but I think I will.

Curious: what do you find Siouan about the idea?

Edit: Oh, nevermind! I just realised you're referring to the allophones of glides in langs like Crow and Hidatsa.

[holbuzvala]

So I have a series of prefixes with determinative meanings (this, that, query, any-, all-, etc.), and suffixes relating to my noun classes and a few other things (human, animate, inanimate, time etc.). They (mostly) canont exist on their own and combine as such: query-human = who? ; distal-human = him ; query-time = when? , proximal-time = now ; etc.

The full list is as follows:
"Prefixes" : proximal, distal, further distal, query, all-, any-

"Suffixes" : human, animate, inanimate, group/collective, abstract, location, time, method

However, I have adjectives following nouns, and subject and object verb prefixes (and SOV word order, mostly). Thus, would it make more sense to have the determinative "prefixes" as suffixes and vice versa?

Yay = change the prefixes to suffixes and vice versa
Nay = keep it as it is

[cedh]

Crosslinguistically, adjectives following nouns, and subject and object verb prefixes usually go with VO order (VSO, VOS, SVO), so if your language uses mostly SOV, it is typologically mixed already. Preposed determiners tend to go with VO order too, which makes your current combined pronouns morphologically consistent with the verbal person prefixes. On the other hand, if you analyse them as compounds of a deictic adjective and a semantically vague head noun, they'd be head-final, which would be consistent with basic OV order. So I think they do fit in as they are. But of course, if you swapped them around they would still fit in with both basic typologies depending on analysis, only the other way around. Accordingly you're basically free to decide whatever you like better.

(In case you plan on having a historical basis for your conlang, it might be interesting to do some research which direction of development fits better with your grammar - a formerly head-initial language starting to shift towards a head-final profile, or the other way around. I can't say offhand. But if you choose one of these options, it might turn out that one of the pronoun variants fits much better than the other.)

((If you really want a vote from me: I'd personally say nay.))

[Frislander]

adjectives following nouns

Apparently this is actually less of a trend than thought

[loglorn]

If there's no diachrony involved, second, because it looks way nicer IMO. If there is a diachrony, then as everyone said follow it.

[holbuzvala]

Awesome. I'll stick with the way it is then.

[holbuzvala]

Another yay or nay. Compare the following

Key: n1 = human noun class; n3 = inanimate noun class; 'ind.obj' = indirect object; 'oblq' = oblique (non accusative)

1.
Bekï dada-k gumna ki-ta-ki-hala
BECKY FATHER-oblq GUMNA n1.sub-n3.obj-n1.ind.obj-GIVE
Becky gave a gumna to her father.

2.
Bekï šfödï (ben) dada-k ki-ta-sata
BECKY COAT (TO/FOR) FATHER-oblq n1.sub-n3.obj-MAKE
Becky made a coat for her father.

In 1, the verb is ditransitive so must have the prefix denoting both the object and indirect object (even if not specified elsewhere: Bekï kitakihala = Becky gave (something to someone)). But in 2, the verb is not ditransitive, so there is not the indirect object prefix on it. My question is, should I include the 'to/for' preposition in 2, or leave the word 'father' just in the oblique case?

Yay = keep is as the bare oblique
Nay = add the preposition 'to/for'

[Lao Kou]

Key: n1 = human noun class; n3 = inanimate noun class; 'ind.obj' = indirect object; 'oblq' = oblique (non accusative)

1.
Bekï dada-k gumna ki-ta-ki-hala
BECKY FATHER-oblq GUMNA n1.sub-n3.obj-n1.ind.obj-GIVE
Becky gave a gumna to her father.

2.
Bekï šfödï (ben) dada-k ki-ta-sata
BECKY COAT (TO/FOR) FATHER-oblq n1.sub-n3.obj-MAKE
Becky made a coat for her father.

In 1, the verb is ditransitive so must have the prefix denoting both the object and indirect object (even if not specified elsewhere: Bekï kitakihala = Becky gave (something to someone)). But in 2, the verb is not ditransitive, so there is not the indirect object prefix on it. My question is, should I include the 'to/for' preposition in 2, or leave the word 'father' just in the oblique case?

Yay = keep is as the bare oblique
Nay = add the preposition 'to/for'

Kitakisata is just off the table an option?

[Frislander]

Key: n1 = human noun class; n3 = inanimate noun class; 'ind.obj' = indirect object; 'oblq' = oblique (non accusative)

1.
Bekï dada-k gumna ki-ta-ki-hala
BECKY FATHER-oblq GUMNA n1.sub-n3.obj-n1.ind.obj-GIVE
Becky gave a gumna to her father.

2.
Bekï šfödï (ben) dada-k ki-ta-sata
BECKY COAT (TO/FOR) FATHER-oblq n1.sub-n3.obj-MAKE
Becky made a coat for her father.

In 1, the verb is ditransitive so must have the prefix denoting both the object and indirect object (even if not specified elsewhere: Bekï kitakihala = Becky gave (something to someone)). But in 2, the verb is not ditransitive, so there is not the indirect object prefix on it. My question is, should I include the 'to/for' preposition in 2, or leave the word 'father' just in the oblique case?

Yay = keep is as the bare oblique
Nay = add the preposition 'to/for'

Kitakisata is just off the table an option?

Implicit applicativisation? Why not!

[holbuzvala]

@Lao Kou

I was in fact thinking of using 'kitakisata'. However, I think passives might make this slightly problematic. Passives are formed by just chopping off the subject prefix (which look identical to object and indirect object prefixes - they only differ in placement by the verb)

1. He made it = ki-ta-sata
2. It was made = ta-sata

3. He gave it to her = ki-ta-ki-hala
4. It was given to her = ta-ki-hala
4b. It was given = ta-ki-hala (because it's got to be given to someone)

5. *He made it for her = ki-ta-ki-sata
6. *It was made for her = ta-ki-sata
7. It made her = ta-ki-sata

Now, this wouldn't really be a problem as in sentences with the nouns in them, humans are marked for being agents, patient, or oblique, so the distinction between sentences akin to 6 and 7 would be always clear. However, it may be that context is enough to differentiate 6 and 7 in other cases.

The question then becomes, does this verbal prefix stacking continue for more things?

8. *He made it for her with a knife = KNIFE ki-ta-ki-ta-sata
9. *He made a knife for her with it = KNIFE ki-ta-ki-ta-sata

Or, in a slightly ambiguous one thanks to free word order:

10. *He made a statue for the room (he build a statue to put in the room) = STATUE ROOM ki-ta-ta-sata
11. *He made a room for the statue (he built a room to house the statue) = STATUE ROOM ki-ta-ta-sata

I could add a rule saying that nouns that cannot be excluded from the sentence must come last before the verb. Or have a rule that only human 'beneficiaries' can be added as verb prefixes (which means everything will be unambiguous thanks to the marking on human nouns for agent/patient/oblique). So we have some choices:

Yay = throw in the -ki- prefix ONLY for human beneficiaries (and maybe animates too? they're marked for oblique, but not agent/patient)
Nay = allow added prefixes for all nouns (up to a point)
Meh = Make the word order less free
Ukh = something else

[Omzinesý]

Another yay or nay. Compare the following

Key: n1 = human noun class; n3 = inanimate noun class; 'ind.obj' = indirect object; 'oblq' = oblique (non accusative)

1.
Bekï dada-k gumna ki-ta-ki-hala
BECKY FATHER-oblq GUMNA n1.sub-n3.obj-n1.ind.obj-GIVE
Becky gave a gumna to her father.

2.
Bekï šfödï (ben) dada-k ki-ta-sata
BECKY COAT (TO/FOR) FATHER-oblq n1.sub-n3.obj-MAKE
Becky made a coat for her father.

In 1, the verb is ditransitive so must have the prefix denoting both the object and indirect object (even if not specified elsewhere: Bekï kitakihala = Becky gave (something to someone)). But in 2, the verb is not ditransitive, so there is not the indirect object prefix on it. My question is, should I include the 'to/for' preposition in 2, or leave the word 'father' just in the oblique case?

Yay = keep is as the bare oblique
Nay = add the preposition 'to/for'

I think the case that is ued for indirect objects should be called the dative. That makes the question somewhat easier. 'Should the dative also express beneficient adjuncts, or sould there be a preposition?' Both do appear in languages.

I think adding the preposition is more interesting.

[eldin raigmore]

I'm trying to think up how to translate 'my name is X.' Obviously, there are several versions available, and these are the ones I've thus far thought up:

1. My name is X
2. They call me X
3. I am X
4. I hold the name X
5. They gave me the name X
6. On/in me is the name X

Which should I use? Or any further suggestions? (P.S. Not a fan of "I call myself X" as I think one shpold relish that one's name is chosen by others and thus delightfully out of our control)

Don't forget the passive version: 'I am called X'. This makes most sense to me, since the 'callers' are very unspecific.

"I answer to X" is also good. It's active instead of passive; and the defeasible implicature is "... and I won't answer to anything else but X".

[Creyeditor]

This reminds me of German

Ich höre auf (den Namen) ... .
1SG hear on (the name) ... .
I answer to (the name of) ...

It's more often used for pets IINM, but I still think it is a nice construction.

[All4Ɇn]

Whoops wrong place

[Ælfwine]

Generating ideas for a brother of Tsakonian.

sp, st, sθ, sk > f θ s x
ps ks > s / #_
Cr > rC
rp rt rð rk > mb nd nd ŋg
ð ɣ > ∅ / V_V
V.V > VjV or VwV
p k g > t ɕ z / V[+front]
m n > n ɲ / V[+front]
r l > j / V[+front]

[zyma]

Generating ideas for a brother of Tsakonian.

sp, st, sθ, sk > f θ s x
ps ks > s / #_
Cr > rC
rp rt rð rk > mb nd nd ŋg
ð ɣ > ∅ / V_V
V.V > VjV or VwV
p k g > t ɕ z / V[+front]
m n > n ɲ / V[+front]
r l > j / V[+front]

Yea. Looks cool so far.

[Frislander]

Generating ideas for a brother of Tsakonian.

sp, st, sθ, sk > f θ s x
ps ks > s / #_
Cr > rC
rp rt rð rk > mb nd nd ŋg
ð ɣ > ∅ / V_V
V.V > VjV or VwV
p k g > t ɕ z / V[+front]
m n > n ɲ / V[+front]
r l > j / V[+front]

"This! Is! Fanda!"

[holbuzvala]

I have this romanisation currently, and I'm not keen on it (especially for the clicks). I already use <x> for /χ/, and <q> for /q/, so that leaves <c> for various things. Currently as:

IPA ROMANISATION
p p
b b
t t
d d
s s
z z
ʃ š
ʒ ž
k k
g g
q q
m m
n n
ŋ ń
r̥ ř
r r
ʀ ǧ
χ x
h h
f f
v v
ɬ (nothing yet)
ʝ y
l l
j j
ɠ ǵ
ʘ {
ᵑʘ m{
ʘ͡ɠ g{
ǀ /
ᵑǀ n/
ǀ͡ɠ g/
ǃ !
ᵑǃ n!
ǃ͡ɠ g!
ǁ #
ᵑǁ n#
ǁ͡ɠ g#

And the vowels:
IPA ROMANISATION
e e
ø ë
a a
i ï
ɪ i
u u
y (compressed) ü
ɒ ö
o o

What suggestions have you? Apropos the vowels, I mostly like them, but I'm keen to change the umlauts to macrons, or just accents. But the real work is needed on the clicks, and some of the other consonants