Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]

[Frislander]

I think there's actually more examples of this kind of thing out there than we think: Karajá women retain /k/ where men delete it in most cases; Japanese shows its different pronouns; Lakota and Thai have different sets of sentence-final particles; Koasati shows differences in verb morphology. I wonder how many other cases have fallen under the radar because mostly male linguists only record men's speech.

[Creyeditor]

I recently read an article about some English variety were woman and man had different burst spectra for glottalized /t/. Not quite the same, but similar.

[Evynova]

Thanks a bunch for your replies!

I didn't know the phenomenon is actually this common, and it's a real shame it isn't more documented. I tried to look for sources to read about "gender diglossia" if one could call it that, but resources are extremely scarce. About Chukchi, Omniglot states that there are phonological differences between men and women but doesn't provide any information and nothing can be found in the sources. Wikipedia gave some examples (Japanese, but also how Garifuna borrowed a significant amount of vocabulary from neighbouring languages but also kept native words; one source or the other will be used depending on the speaker's gender), and I also found out that the genderlect theory is an actual thing (even in the English language, men and women will express themselves using different words or even grammar, and might use different allophones). I wonder if the concept of genderlect will end up in linguistics courses at some point or another. Or it might already be; I am no linguistics student after all.

Anyway, now that I know it's attested, I will definitely keep that idea and work on it.

[smii]

Could you have a fluid-s direct-inverse language so fall-dir 1s and fall-inv 1s would both mean 'I fall', but the first would imply volition? I'm still working out the details, but I was wondering whether there were any natlangs that did this, or whether there was some roadblock that I'd missed.

[Creyeditor]

I think this makes sense and it attested.

[All4Ɇn]

Right now one of my conlangs maintains a distinction between Sinic numerals and native ones, with both of them being used in different situations. I'm thinking about adding 廿 as a 3rd numeral for twenty that only occurs in a few words, such as 廿年 for twenty years. Should I go with this and if so is plausible considering that it's for a conlang spoken in North Vietnam/Southern China?

[Lao Kou]

I'm thinking about adding 廿 as a 3rd numeral for twenty that only occurs in a few words, such as 廿年 for twenty years. Should I go with this and if so is plausible considering that it's for a conlang spoken in North Vietnam/Southern China?

I'd say yay -- the more ways to say things, the merrier. And you seem to want to keep it on a reasonably short leash, so why not? And English has "a score", as in "four score and seven years ago", and (although lifespans have changed) people living out their "three score and ten" (and those expressions also deal in years).

廿 is alive and well in Shanghai last I checked.
廿, read ya6, seems to work in Cantonese. I also found 廿丈 as trucker jargon for a twenty-foot truck container, which may be a little insider baseball for your purposes. Still, as a unit of measure in, say, a fabric shop, it gives me a wee frisson.
While both my Taiwanese and mainland Minnan dictionaries treat 廿 as a mushy contraction of 二十 (to be read lip6 or liap6, as well as some others, depending on where you're from), the former offers no usage examples, but the latter talks about years as 年 and 歲/岁 (for age), which seems to be where you're heading.

Points being:
Your plausibility concerns seem okay in terms of the Southern China thang (can't speak to Vietnamese).
Set expressions like with 年 or 歲/岁 seem perfectly reasonable. I might be tempted to apply it to (outdated?) units of distance, weight, currency (and for headlines and signage, 廿 takes less space than 二十 or however one writes the indigenous numbers), but I admire your restraint.

Yay.

[All4Ɇn]

Thanks for all the info ! Right now I'm planning on applying to the classifiers for the following: years, years of age, days of the month, kilometers, chi (尺), zhang (丈), đồng, and yuan in addition to being a short form of 二十 on signs.

[Lao Kou]

Right now I'm planning on applying to the classifiers for the following: years, years of age, days of the month, kilometers, chi (尺), zhang (丈), đồng, and yuan in addition to being a short form of 二十 on signs.

Looks like you're playing it as I personally might have imagined. Now, whatever will you with 卅 sà?

[All4Ɇn]

Now, whatever will you with 卅 sà?

Is that character even really used anywhere in China?

[Thrice Xandvii]

This is almost a yay/nay question, so I figured I'd post it here and see how it goes.

I recently completed an overhaul to the written forms of glyphs in Shitaall. However, now that I have, I have come across a bit of an issue. Before, there were only a few vowels, and when the non-inherent vowel was intended a mark could be placed above or below the sign for that consonant, and bingo-bango, there you go. If that syllable had a coda consonant (which is written below the glyph for the onset), then the vowel sign (if any) was simply moved to the position above. Now, though, there are a lot more vowels, and so I have given some vowels a sign that is always placed above, and yet others a sign that is always placed below. Obviously, this creates an issue where in if the vowel is a "low sign" vowel, it can't be written if there is a coda consonant.

Soooo, that brings up the question: should I just under-specify in the written language and create some ambiguity and just skip the low signs when there is a coda? Should I move the sign above and have the high sign vowels simply narrow down the choices in the case of a coda, or, lastly, should I innovate some signs that are only used when a low sign has to be moved above the glyph and act as a high sign?

[All4Ɇn]

lastly, should I innovate some signs that are only used when a low sign has to be moved above the glyph and act as a high sign?

Personally, I'd say to go for this option.

[Lao Kou]

Now, whatever will you with 卅 sà?

Is that character even really used anywhere in China?

Well, it's not on the top 10 playlist, certainly, but I do think I've seen it out in the wild once or twice. But the evil smiley was meant as an indication that I was just busting your chops.

[Davush]

Thinking of some orthographical changes to Qutrussan:

Word initial /j/ as <i> instead of <y>? I feel this adds to the classical feel, but I hate how it is difficult to distinguish capital 'i' from lowercase 'L' in some fonts. Also it has moved away from the classical feel somewhat, so that isn't too important now.

iáthma vs yáthma 'sea'
iéca vs yéca 'one

Also possible in other positions:
zahmúiună vs zahmúyună

<ia ua> would always carry an accent <ía úa> if I use <i> for /j/. E.g. cia /kja/ but cía /ki:ǝ/.

<ts z> to be replaced with underdot <ṣ ẓ>? I quite like this, as Qutrussan already uses <ḥ ṛ>.
tsăyuan vs ṣăiúan
mŭtsa vs mŭṣa
qadzi vs qaẓẓi

[Thrice Xandvii]

lastly, should I innovate some signs that are only used when a low sign has to be moved above the glyph and act as a high sign?

Personally, I'd say to go for this option.

Yeah, mayhap.

However, that kinda forces the question of why those signs aren't always used just to totally avoid the issue.

[Frislander]

<ts z> to be replaced with underdot <ṣ ẓ>? I quite like this, as Qutrussan already uses <ḥ ṛ>.
tsăyuan vs ṣăiúan
mŭtsa vs mŭṣa
qadzi vs qaẓẓi

I'm guessing you're not gonna budge on the <c> for /k/ front, so <c z> is not an option, so I think I'll actually say nay.

[Davush]

<ts z> to be replaced with underdot <ṣ ẓ>? I quite like this, as Qutrussan already uses <ḥ ṛ>.
tsăyuan vs ṣăiúan
mŭtsa vs mŭṣa
qadzi vs qaẓẓi

I'm guessing you're not gonna budge on the <c> for /k/ front, so <c z> is not an option, so I think I'll actually say nay.

Yeah, I usually prefer <k> for /k/ but I am attached to <c> in Qutrussan now...

[Thrice Xandvii]

lastly, should I innovate some signs that are only used when a low sign has to be moved above the glyph and act as a high sign?

Personally, I'd say to go for this option.

Yeah, mayhap.

However, that kinda forces the question of why those signs aren't always used just to totally avoid the issue.

(Yes, I'm quoting myself.)

For any that care, what I decided to do was to create a set of signs for the set that never move (strong signs) and leave the other ones the same and call them "weak." That way, there are some that are always on top and never move, and then a set of simpler (weaker) signs that can shift position depending on if the syllable has a coda. Thanks for the input, Al4En.

[Omzinesý]

If a language has three cases of location
1 for being inside X
2 for being on the surface of X
and
3 for being near to X,
which of them would the most probably develop a side meaning as an instrumental?

IMO 3 is likeliest, 2 second-likeliest, 1 not likely at all.
Your instrument is usually near you, and near whatever you're using it on.
It may be that, to use it, you have to touch it as long as you're using it; and it may be that, to use it on something, you have to touch the something with it as long as you're using it on that something.
But it almost* never needs to be inside you; and it only sometimes has to go inside what you're using it on.

*Exceptions might be e.g. "Use your brain!", or "I spy with my little eye ...", or so on. But most instruments aren't body-parts of the user.

Thank, you. I think you are right.

[Tuyono]

Should I use partial reduplication of verb stems to form the habitual aspect?
some examples of what it would look like:
ʃal → ʃaˈʃal
i͡at→ atˈi͡at
luɟ → luˈluɟ
teˈmish → teteˈmish
aːɲu → aːɲaɲu