Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]
Re: Yay or Nay?
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?
-∅- 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.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Re: Yay or Nay?
I'd go with yayAdarain 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?
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Yay or Nay?
Hmm, I'll experiment with that.gestaltist wrote:I like Crey's idea... But if you have h for the glottal stop, what about romanizing the ejectives with <h> also? ph th khDesEsseintes wrote:Hmm, that's quite an extreme idea though I must say I kinda like it. I'll think about it. Thanks.Creyeditor wrote:JainDesEsseintes 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?
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
Regardless, I'm using h for sure!
Btw what on Earth is 'jain'? Ja and nein rolled into one?
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?
- gestaltist
- mayan
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23
Re: Yay or Nay?
IMO, this looks much worse than the original romanization. I'd say keep the previous version.DesEsseintes wrote:Hmm, I'll experiment with that.gestaltist wrote:I like Crey's idea... But if you have h for the glottal stop, what about romanizing the ejectives with <h> also? ph th khDesEsseintes wrote:Hmm, that's quite an extreme idea though I must say I kinda like it. I'll think about it. Thanks.Creyeditor wrote:JainDesEsseintes 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?
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
Regardless, I'm using h for sure!
Btw what on Earth is 'jain'? Ja and nein rolled into one?
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?
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Yay or Nay?
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.gestaltist wrote:IMO, this looks much worse than the original romanization. I'd say keep the previous version.DesEsseintes wrote:Hmm, I'll experiment with that.Spoiler:
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?
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).
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Yay or Nay?
It's actually growing on me.Frislander wrote: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.gestaltist wrote:IMO, this looks much worse than the original romanization. I'd say keep the previous version.DesEsseintes wrote:Hmm, I'll experiment with that.Spoiler:
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?
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).
Check out words like ćhīśtećełwuk . 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.
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Yay or Nay?
That is nice: I think I actually prefer it to ch'īshtechełwuk. So you know what, I'll actually go yay with this one!DesEsseintes wrote:It's actually growing on me.Frislander wrote: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.gestaltist wrote:IMO, this looks much worse than the original romanization. I'd say keep the previous version.DesEsseintes wrote:Hmm, I'll experiment with that.Spoiler:
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?
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).
Check out words like ćhīśtećełwuk . 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.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Yay or Nay?
Looks like someone spilled diacritics over some Central European language. I really like itDesEsseintes wrote:ćhīśtećełwuk .
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
- gestaltist
- mayan
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23
Re: Yay or Nay?
Yeah, it's actually not that bad when you put it to use...Creyeditor wrote:Looks like someone spilled diacritics over some Central European language. I really like itDesEsseintes wrote:ćhīśtećełwuk .
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Yay or Nay?
gestaltist wrote:Yeah, it's actually not that bad when you put it to use...Creyeditor wrote:Looks like someone spilled diacritics over some Central European language. I really like itDesEsseintes wrote:ćhīśtećełwuk .
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?
Re: Yay or Nay?
I just agree.Creyeditor wrote:Looks like someone spilled diacritics over some Central European language.DesEsseintes wrote:ćhīśtećełwuk .
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
Conlang embryo of TELES: Proto-Avesto-Umbric ~> Proto-Umbric
New blog: http://argentiusbonavalensis.tumblr.com
- gestaltist
- mayan
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23
Re: Yay or Nay?
You mean... you're always right when you accept my ideas?DesEsseintes wrote: When will you guys learn that I'm always right?
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Yay or Nay?
gestaltist wrote:You mean... you're always right when you accept my ideas?DesEsseintes wrote: When will you guys learn that I'm always right?
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Yay or Nay?
Des making a bad conlanging choice? Heresy!DesEsseintes wrote:gestaltist wrote:You mean... you're always right when you accept my ideas?DesEsseintes wrote: When will you guys learn that I'm always right?
-
- cuneiform
- Posts: 189
- Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03
Re: Yay or Nay?
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').
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').
Re: Yay or Nay?
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?holbuzvala wrote:Should I add more 'quirky' noun classes like class 6? If so, any suggestions?
Re: Yay or Nay?
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?
- Dormouse559
- moderator
- Posts: 2945
- Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
- Location: California
Re: Yay or Nay?
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").
Re: Yay or Nay?
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.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?
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
Re: Yay or Nay?
Thanks for bringing up some great points dormouse and Lao Kou! I think I'm going to go with it
I quite like the idea of "ro im friþe" being the Thrinn equivalent of "RIP In Peace"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.