Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 511
Joined: 03 Jul 2015 15:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Adarain »

Currently, Mesak has two tense markers:

-∅- Non-Future
-py- Future

I'm thinking of changing -py- to instead be a non-past, so that both markers can be used (with different connotations, of course), for the present tense. Thoughts?
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1728
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by loglorn »

Adarain wrote:Currently, Mesak has two tense markers:

-∅- Non-Future
-py- Future

I'm thinking of changing -py- to instead be a non-past, so that both markers can be used (with different connotations, of course), for the present tense. Thoughts?
I'd go with yay
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4331
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes »

gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:I haven't been using glottal stops much yet in my speedlang Ullxānt’axt. The language has ejectives romanised using p’ t’ k’ etc. and I was originally planning on using for the glottal stop. Now I'm tempted to go all Nahuatl here and use h for the glottal stop. The glottal stop occurs intervocalically and in coda.

Yea or Nay?
Jain [xD]
Use <h> for the glottal stop, but make it an allophone of all ejectives, so that the place distinction is neutralized, i.e:

{p' t' k' } > ʔ /V_{#,V} only if the preceding vowel is unstressed
Hmm, that's quite an extreme idea though I must say I kinda like it. I'll think about it. Thanks. [:)]

Regardless, I'm using h for sure!

Btw what on Earth is 'jain'? Ja and nein rolled into one?
I like Crey's idea... But if you have h for the glottal stop, what about romanizing the ejectives with <h> also? ph th kh
Hmm, I'll experiment with that.

Using Ch for ejectives does have rather drastic consequences as postalveolars were meant to be romanised ch sh. I guess I could then do this:

/p t t͡ɬ t͡s t͡ʃ k ʔ/ p t tł c ć k h
/p’ t’ t͡ɬ’ t͡s’ t͡ʃ’ k’/ ph th tłh ch ćh kh
/s ʃ/ s ś

Thoughts?
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gestaltist »

DesEsseintes wrote:
gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:I haven't been using glottal stops much yet in my speedlang Ullxānt’axt. The language has ejectives romanised using p’ t’ k’ etc. and I was originally planning on using for the glottal stop. Now I'm tempted to go all Nahuatl here and use h for the glottal stop. The glottal stop occurs intervocalically and in coda.

Yea or Nay?
Jain [xD]
Use <h> for the glottal stop, but make it an allophone of all ejectives, so that the place distinction is neutralized, i.e:

{p' t' k' } > ʔ /V_{#,V} only if the preceding vowel is unstressed
Hmm, that's quite an extreme idea though I must say I kinda like it. I'll think about it. Thanks. [:)]

Regardless, I'm using h for sure!

Btw what on Earth is 'jain'? Ja and nein rolled into one?
I like Crey's idea... But if you have h for the glottal stop, what about romanizing the ejectives with <h> also? ph th kh
Hmm, I'll experiment with that.

Using Ch for ejectives does have rather drastic consequences as postalveolars were meant to be romanised ch sh. I guess I could then do this:

/p t t͡ɬ t͡s t͡ʃ k ʔ/ p t tł c ć k h
/p’ t’ t͡ɬ’ t͡s’ t͡ʃ’ k’/ ph th tłh ch ćh kh
/s ʃ/ s ś

Thoughts?
IMO, this looks much worse than the original romanization. I'd say keep the previous version.
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander »

gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:
Spoiler:
gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:I haven't been using glottal stops much yet in my speedlang Ullxānt’axt. The language has ejectives romanised using p’ t’ k’ etc. and I was originally planning on using for the glottal stop. Now I'm tempted to go all Nahuatl here and use h for the glottal stop. The glottal stop occurs intervocalically and in coda.

Yea or Nay?
Jain [xD]
Use <h> for the glottal stop, but make it an allophone of all ejectives, so that the place distinction is neutralized, i.e:

{p' t' k' } > ʔ /V_{#,V} only if the preceding vowel is unstressed
Hmm, that's quite an extreme idea though I must say I kinda like it. I'll think about it. Thanks. [:)]

Regardless, I'm using h for sure!

Btw what on Earth is 'jain'? Ja and nein rolled into one?
I like Crey's idea... But if you have h for the glottal stop, what about romanizing the ejectives with <h> also? ph th kh
Hmm, I'll experiment with that.

Using Ch for ejectives does have rather drastic consequences as postalveolars were meant to be romanised ch sh. I guess I could then do this:

/p t t͡ɬ t͡s t͡ʃ k ʔ/ p t tł c ć k h
/p’ t’ t͡ɬ’ t͡s’ t͡ʃ’ k’/ ph th tłh ch ćh kh
/s ʃ/ s ś

Thoughts?
IMO, this looks much worse than the original romanization. I'd say keep the previous version.
I'll agree: it makes sense as a system, but it's not intuitive from the perspective of almost all other romanisations of ejectives that have ever existed.

It's like how I'm totally fazed by Paul Frommer's choice to romanise Na'vi's glottal stop with an apostrophe and its ejectives with -x, the exact opposite of what I'd have done and what natlang attestation would suggest (note that <x> for /ʔ/ is found in Piraha).
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4331
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes »

Frislander wrote:
gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:
Spoiler:
gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:I haven't been using glottal stops much yet in my speedlang Ullxānt’axt. The language has ejectives romanised using p’ t’ k’ etc. and I was originally planning on using for the glottal stop. Now I'm tempted to go all Nahuatl here and use h for the glottal stop. The glottal stop occurs intervocalically and in coda.

Yea or Nay?
Jain [xD]
Use <h> for the glottal stop, but make it an allophone of all ejectives, so that the place distinction is neutralized, i.e:

{p' t' k' } > ʔ /V_{#,V} only if the preceding vowel is unstressed
Hmm, that's quite an extreme idea though I must say I kinda like it. I'll think about it. Thanks. [:)]

Regardless, I'm using h for sure!

Btw what on Earth is 'jain'? Ja and nein rolled into one?
I like Crey's idea... But if you have h for the glottal stop, what about romanizing the ejectives with <h> also? ph th kh
Hmm, I'll experiment with that.

Using Ch for ejectives does have rather drastic consequences as postalveolars were meant to be romanised ch sh. I guess I could then do this:

/p t t͡ɬ t͡s t͡ʃ k ʔ/ p t tł c ć k h
/p’ t’ t͡ɬ’ t͡s’ t͡ʃ’ k’/ ph th tłh ch ćh kh
/s ʃ/ s ś

Thoughts?
IMO, this looks much worse than the original romanization. I'd say keep the previous version.
I'll agree: it makes sense as a system, but it's not intuitive from the perspective of almost all other romanisations of ejectives that have ever existed.

It's like how I'm totally fazed by Paul Frommer's choice to romanise Na'vi's glottal stop with an apostrophe and its ejectives with -x, the exact opposite of what I'd have done and what natlang attestation would suggest (note that <x> for /ʔ/ is found in Piraha).
It's actually growing on me.

Check out words like ćhīśtećełwuk [<3]. As for it being counter-intuitive and unattested, those are not really big considerations for me. I've come across so many romanisations I find counter-intuitive that I might as well make my own.
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander »

DesEsseintes wrote:
Frislander wrote:
gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:
Spoiler:
gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:I haven't been using glottal stops much yet in my speedlang Ullxānt’axt. The language has ejectives romanised using p’ t’ k’ etc. and I was originally planning on using for the glottal stop. Now I'm tempted to go all Nahuatl here and use h for the glottal stop. The glottal stop occurs intervocalically and in coda.

Yea or Nay?
Jain [xD]
Use <h> for the glottal stop, but make it an allophone of all ejectives, so that the place distinction is neutralized, i.e:

{p' t' k' } > ʔ /V_{#,V} only if the preceding vowel is unstressed
Hmm, that's quite an extreme idea though I must say I kinda like it. I'll think about it. Thanks. [:)]

Regardless, I'm using h for sure!

Btw what on Earth is 'jain'? Ja and nein rolled into one?
I like Crey's idea... But if you have h for the glottal stop, what about romanizing the ejectives with <h> also? ph th kh
Hmm, I'll experiment with that.

Using Ch for ejectives does have rather drastic consequences as postalveolars were meant to be romanised ch sh. I guess I could then do this:

/p t t͡ɬ t͡s t͡ʃ k ʔ/ p t tł c ć k h
/p’ t’ t͡ɬ’ t͡s’ t͡ʃ’ k’/ ph th tłh ch ćh kh
/s ʃ/ s ś

Thoughts?
IMO, this looks much worse than the original romanization. I'd say keep the previous version.
I'll agree: it makes sense as a system, but it's not intuitive from the perspective of almost all other romanisations of ejectives that have ever existed.

It's like how I'm totally fazed by Paul Frommer's choice to romanise Na'vi's glottal stop with an apostrophe and its ejectives with -x, the exact opposite of what I'd have done and what natlang attestation would suggest (note that <x> for /ʔ/ is found in Piraha).
It's actually growing on me.

Check out words like ćhīśtećełwuk [<3]. As for it being counter-intuitive and unattested, those are not really big considerations for me. I've come across so many romanisations I find counter-intuitive that I might as well make my own.
That is nice: I think I actually prefer it to ch'īshtechełwuk. So you know what, I'll actually go yay with this one!
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor »

DesEsseintes wrote:ćhīśtećełwuk [<3].
Looks like someone spilled diacritics over some Central European language. I really like it [:)]
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gestaltist »

Creyeditor wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:ćhīśtećełwuk [<3].
Looks like someone spilled diacritics over some Central European language. I really like it [:)]
Yeah, it's actually not that bad when you put it to use...
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4331
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes »

gestaltist wrote:
Creyeditor wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:ćhīśtećełwuk [<3].
Looks like someone spilled diacritics over some Central European language. I really like it [:)]
Yeah, it's actually not that bad when you put it to use...
Frislander wrote:That is nice: I think I actually prefer it to ch'īshtechełwuk. So you know what, I'll actually go yay with this one!

When will you guys learn that I'm always right? [B)]
User avatar
Egerius
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1588
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 21:29
Location: Not Rodentèrra
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Egerius »

Creyeditor wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote:ćhīśtećełwuk [<3].
Looks like someone spilled diacritics over some Central European language.
I just agree.
Languages of Rodentèrra: Buonavallese, Saselvan Argemontese; Wīlandisċ Taulkeisch; More on the road.
Conlang embryo of TELES: Proto-Avesto-Umbric ~> Proto-Umbric
New blog: http://argentiusbonavalensis.tumblr.com
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by gestaltist »

DesEsseintes wrote: When will you guys learn that I'm always right? [B)]
You mean... you're always right when you accept my ideas? [}:D]
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4331
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes »

gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote: When will you guys learn that I'm always right? [B)]
You mean... you're always right when you accept my ideas? [}:D]
[xD]
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander »

DesEsseintes wrote:
gestaltist wrote:
DesEsseintes wrote: When will you guys learn that I'm always right? [B)]
You mean... you're always right when you accept my ideas? [}:D]
[xD]
Des making a bad conlanging choice? Heresy!
holbuzvala
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by holbuzvala »

I have noun classes in my lang for verbal agreements, which are as follows:

1. human
2. animate (including rivers and parts of the body that move like the heart)
3. inanimate
4. abstract (anything physically intangible, like sound or emotions; along with materials)
5. places
6. things that occur in groups/bunches (fingers, grapes)

Should I add more 'quirky' noun classes like class 6? If so, any suggestions?

I might have Class 6 evolve into simply the plural noun class, but that remains to be seen.

N.B. All nouns of a given class will conform to certain morphological structures. Kind of like in English how words ending in '-ation' are usually abtractions of actions (procrastination, circulation, mastication), but not always so (like 'station').
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

holbuzvala wrote:Should I add more 'quirky' noun classes like class 6? If so, any suggestions?
Maybe you could have a class for animate human-like beings that aren't human like ghosts or werewolves. Maybe it could be used metaphorically towards people as well?
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

In Thrinn Þþ and Ðð are pronounced the same. The word for peace is friþ and, according to spelling rules, that spelling can't be changed to the similar frið. Right now the phrase "rest in peace" is "ro im friþe" but I'm thinking about changing friþe's spelling just in that specific phrase to friðe. Does that seem too specific of a spelling change to still stick in around in modern times or should I stick with it?
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2945
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Dormouse559 »

Yea, if you can come up with a backstory. Written language is definitely artificial enough that you can justify a lot of things, especially on the basis of tradition or ambiguity (Take <ye>, an archaic spelling of <the> that's managed to survive with a new pronunciation in "ye olde").
User avatar
Lao Kou
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 5089
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Lao Kou »

All4Ɇn wrote:In Thrinn Þþ and Ðð are pronounced the same. The word for peace is friþ and, according to spelling rules, that spelling can't be changed to the similar frið. Right now the phrase "rest in peace" is "ro im friþe" but I'm thinking about changing friþe's spelling just in that specific phrase to friðe. Does that seem too specific of a spelling change to still stick in around in modern times or should I stick with it?
Particularly in a set phrase like "rest in peace", it could have been spelled any old which way back when and come down through the ages as is. As it most likely would predominantly appear on gravestones, the archaism could mark respect and saudade, and misspelling it elsewhere could be a source of humor. Or just have this special <im friðe> spelling carry across the board into the modern age, and it's an unintuitive spelling that you just gotta know (and I doubt natives would freak out on this one). So however you play it, yay.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1765
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

Thanks for bringing up some great points dormouse and Lao Kou! I think I'm going to go with it [:)]
Lao Kou wrote:As it most likely would predominantly appear on gravestones, the archaism could mark respect and saudade, and misspelling it elsewhere could be a source of humor.
I quite like the idea of "ro im friþe" being the Thrinn equivalent of "RIP In Peace" [xD]
Locked