Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]
Re: Yay or Nay?
I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it but I've been working on a sort of conlanging exercise. It's a Germanic language similar to Dutch and Low German which has technically removed cases from its grammar, but one that uses fossilized case usages so frequently that it's still practically a necessity to learn cases in order to properly speak the language. I was wondering if anyone would be curious in seeing a thread about this.
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
Yes, absolutely!All4Ɇn wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018 00:26 I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it but I've been working on a sort of conlanging exercise. It's a Germanic language similar to Dutch and Low German which has technically removed cases from its grammar, but one that uses fossilized case usages so frequently that it's still practically a necessity to learn cases in order to properly speak the language. I was wondering if anyone would be curious in seeing a thread about this.
Re: Yay or Nay?
Seems interesting potentially. I quite like low Germanic languages myself generally. I find it hard to conceptualise a situation where case remains fully understood but only exists in fossilised set phrases but knowledge of it is necessary to speak it properly though at the same time not necessary. Could it be that you have a prestige dialect that retains the use of case and it is more optional or diminished in common usage? I like the idea of a transitional state from case to non-case and again, I am enthusiastic about low Germanic languages generally. I would be interested in what you do with it for sure.All4Ɇn wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018 00:26 I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it but I've been working on a sort of conlanging exercise. It's a Germanic language similar to Dutch and Low German which has technically removed cases from its grammar, but one that uses fossilized case usages so frequently that it's still practically a necessity to learn cases in order to properly speak the language. I was wondering if anyone would be curious in seeing a thread about this.
Re: Yay or Nay?
Since pː → pʰ is attested, how likely is the opposite pʰ → pː in an intervocalic environment? Both [pʰ] and [pː] could be viewed as fortis realizations of [p]. Yea or Nay on making them interchangeable intervocalically such that:
p pʰ → f p \ V_V
p pʰ → f p \ V_V
- WeepingElf
- greek
- Posts: 531
- Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Yay or Nay?
I'd say nay: [pʰ] is more likely to become [f] than [p]. The change you are asking about seems like leap-frogging to me.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
My conlang pages
My conlang pages
Re: Yay or Nay?
I bet someone already mentioned this, but anyway:
What happens when an aspect is argued without sufficient sway?
If it's neither 'yay' nor 'nay', does that make it 'gray' ?
What happens when an aspect is argued without sufficient sway?
If it's neither 'yay' nor 'nay', does that make it 'gray' ?
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
Maybe, though I'd like to see real world examples of Cʰ > C: to be truly happy with the justification. My preferred development path would still be along the lines of
p > b > β > f
pʰ > p
Re: Yay or Nay?
Option 4 but maybe have one of the classes be quite rare compared to the others.
-
- sinic
- Posts: 413
- Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
- Contact:
Re: Yay or Nay?
I'm working on Denkurian's nominal declension system, and I think I am mostly satisfied with where I've ended up, except I'm not too sure about what I have for the genitive plural. I am using the example noun razh man, since it is a consonant stem:
In this set, the genitive plural ending is -(e)nek, which is basically the nominative accusative plural plus the genitive ending, instead of the normal oblique plural marker -i.
I was considering the following genitive plural markers:
Code: Select all
sg. pl.
nom. razh razhen
acc. razhes razhis
gen. razhek razhenek
dat. razhev razhiv
inst. razhed razhidi
I was considering the following genitive plural markers:
- -(e)nek, as above
- -(e)kel, using an old collective affix -el
- -(e)ken, reversing the order of the case and plural suffix
- -inek, using both the oblique and nominative plural, plus the genitive ending
- Some other combination/order of the genitive affix -(e)k, the oblique plural -i, the nominative plural -(e)n, and the old collective affix -el
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs: http://grwilliams.net/ It's a work in progress!
Re: Yay or Nay?
Honestly, having -ik as the plural in analogy with the dative and accusative might suffice, unless you are going for something totally regular and agglutinative.
-
- sinic
- Posts: 413
- Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
- Contact:
Re: Yay or Nay?
I thought about that as well; I guess I saw the -ik option as appearing even more regular and agglutinative.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs: http://grwilliams.net/ It's a work in progress!
Re: Yay or Nay?
I like 1 and 4.
Re: Yay or Nay?
It seems to be plural genitives that are most varied in languages. Finnish has enkeli-en, enkele-iden, enkele-itten, enkel-ten (and enkele-in) all meaning ' angels' ' Russian plural genitives are also famously difficult.felipesnark wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018 23:44 I'm working on Denkurian's nominal declension system, and I think I am mostly satisfied with where I've ended up, except I'm not too sure about what I have for the genitive plural. I am using the example noun razh man, since it is a consonant stem:
In this set, the genitive plural ending is -(e)nek, which is basically the nominative accusative plural plus the genitive ending, instead of the normal oblique plural marker -i.Code: Select all
sg. pl. nom. razh razhen acc. razhes razhis gen. razhek razhenek dat. razhev razhiv inst. razhed razhidi
I was considering the following genitive plural markers:Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks in advance!
- -(e)nek, as above
- -(e)kel, using an old collective affix -el
- -(e)ken, reversing the order of the case and plural suffix
- -inek, using both the oblique and nominative plural, plus the genitive ending
- Some other combination/order of the genitive affix -(e)k, the oblique plural -i, the nominative plural -(e)n, and the old collective affix -el
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
Going by sound alone, I think I like options 1 and 4 the most.
-
- greek
- Posts: 583
- Joined: 19 Mar 2016 04:14
- Location: Australia
Re: Yay or Nay?
β > f is pretty rare and strange though.
If your okay with devoicing between consonants (like gach's β > f) you could try:
pʰ > b > bː > pː
p > f
or:
p > f
pʰ > p > pː
But like gach I'd expect pʰ to become f over p.
There is this one rule I found here: http://pbase.phon.chass.ncsu.edu/pattern/4231 . And that's it.
So... nay? Subjectively better option:
pʰ > f \ V_V
p > pː \ V_V[+stress]
A signature.
Re: Yay or Nay?
You can impose general devoicing of fricatives, though, in which case the change works nicely. Voicing distinction is anyway less common on fricatives than on stops (https://wals.info/feature/4A#2/19.3/152.9), so loosing voicing on fricatives is not out of question.
Edit: Continued in this thread. -Aevas, 2020-05-08