Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]
Re: Yay or Nay?
While there's still time to implement this without too much pain:
As regards Japoné語:
I decided a while back to let go the Japanese pronunciation of syllables ending in ん and just let those atrocious Québecois nasal vowels run amok (no prejudice there ). This, I think, gives Japoné語 more its own hideous character/flavor (and a feminine "-e" can get you back to something closer to Japanese). And that's easy enough to fix in the lexicon as I go along.
What I've been waffling about forevs is this:
You can maneuver around Japanese し (romanized Japoné語 <ch> [ʃ / ɕ] (who cares?)) effortlessly.
The same can't be said for Japanese ち or じ/ぢ (romanized Japoné語 <tch> [tʃ / tɕ] and <dj> [dʒ / dʑ] (and again, who cares?)). Now French has <tch> and <dj>, of course, but with a decidedly you're-from-out-of-town vibe, so the influx of these spellings for Japanese words strikes me as a little jarring.
So the question is this: Do I level the Japanese ち and じ/ぢ to <ch> [ʃ / ɕ] and <j> [ʒ / ʑ], and keep <tch> and <dj> for special occasions like <Tchad> and <Abidjan>? Or do I just suck it up, keep the Japanese ersatz-pronunciations, and not worry about the proliferation of <tch> and <dj> in the orthography?
As regards Japoné語:
I decided a while back to let go the Japanese pronunciation of syllables ending in ん and just let those atrocious Québecois nasal vowels run amok (no prejudice there ). This, I think, gives Japoné語 more its own hideous character/flavor (and a feminine "-e" can get you back to something closer to Japanese). And that's easy enough to fix in the lexicon as I go along.
What I've been waffling about forevs is this:
You can maneuver around Japanese し (romanized Japoné語 <ch> [ʃ / ɕ] (who cares?)) effortlessly.
The same can't be said for Japanese ち or じ/ぢ (romanized Japoné語 <tch> [tʃ / tɕ] and <dj> [dʒ / dʑ] (and again, who cares?)). Now French has <tch> and <dj>, of course, but with a decidedly you're-from-out-of-town vibe, so the influx of these spellings for Japanese words strikes me as a little jarring.
So the question is this: Do I level the Japanese ち and じ/ぢ to <ch> [ʃ / ɕ] and <j> [ʒ / ʑ], and keep <tch> and <dj> for special occasions like <Tchad> and <Abidjan>? Or do I just suck it up, keep the Japanese ersatz-pronunciations, and not worry about the proliferation of <tch> and <dj> in the orthography?
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Yay or Nay?
I say level them in native vocabulary, keeping <tch>, <dj> for the out-of-towners. Japonégueule gives me a slight "lazy sound" vibe which I think this merger goes well with.Lao Kou wrote:So the question is this: Do I level the Japanese ち and じ/ぢ to <ch> [ʃ / ɕ] and <j> [ʒ / ʑ], and keep <tch> and <dj> for special occasions like <Tchad> and <Abidjan>? Or do I just suck it up, keep the Japanese ersatz-pronunciations, and not worry about the proliferation of <tch> and <dj> in the orthography?
So yay, I say.
Re: Yay or Nay?
Thank you. One precinct reporting. (Though another concern with this decision is that the language may get too "shishy", if you understand my meaning.)DesEsseintes wrote:I say level them in native vocabulary, keeping <tch>, <dj> for the out-of-towners. Japonégueule gives me a slight "lazy sound" vibe which I think this merger goes well with. So yay, I say.
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Yay or Nay?
One can never quite be too shishy, brother Kou, least of all you.Lao Kou wrote:Thank you. One precinct reporting. (Though another concern with this decision is that the language may get too "shishy", if you understand my meaning.)DesEsseintes wrote:I say level them in native vocabulary, keeping <tch>, <dj> for the out-of-towners. Japonégueule gives me a slight "lazy sound" vibe which I think this merger goes well with. So yay, I say.
Re: Yay or Nay?
My abilities to turn you or Derwood into a duck notwithstanding (any more frogs in my toilet, mister, and you'll be quacking in the new year ), I was thinking more of the diffs between the shushiness of Portuguese vs. the susiness of Portuguese. Would the collapse just end up making Japoné語 all sound like 嘘嘘嘘嘘嘘嘘?DesEsseintes wrote:One can never quite be too shishy, brother Kou, least of all you.
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
Re: Yay or Nay?
Should Vålkakili (Imperfective) Past paradigm be (a or (b?
Basically, should third person forms be differentiated from SG1 and SG2 by a) lengthening the stem consonant, which can be explained by analogy to the corresponding present forms, or b) have no person/tense marker?
a)
ehli 'I lived'
ehlit 'you lived'
ehlli 'he lived'
ehlime 'we lived'
ehlire 'you lived'
ehllit 'they lived'
b)
ehli 'I lived'
ehlit 'you lived'
ehl 'he lived'
ehlime 'we lived'
ehlire 'you lived'
ehlt 'they lived'
Basically, should third person forms be differentiated from SG1 and SG2 by a) lengthening the stem consonant, which can be explained by analogy to the corresponding present forms, or b) have no person/tense marker?
a)
ehli 'I lived'
ehlit 'you lived'
ehlli 'he lived'
ehlime 'we lived'
ehlire 'you lived'
ehllit 'they lived'
b)
ehli 'I lived'
ehlit 'you lived'
ehl 'he lived'
ehlime 'we lived'
ehlire 'you lived'
ehlt 'they lived'
Edit: Present paradigm differentiates them with different vowels e vs. o and consonant lengthening.
I personally like neither of the alternatives, but I cannot find up a better paradigm.My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
-
- korean
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
I'm afraid I don't have a strong opinion here, either, but the "French" option feels more realistic to me, for whatever that's worth.Lao Kou wrote:love-him/it(m)-FUT.1SGÆlfwine wrote:I'm not familiar with Portuguese tbh. Gloss?qwed117 wrote:So is the second one something like Portuguese amá-lo-ei? If so, I'd gladly say yes to that, else I'd stick to the French example
I will love him/it.
I don't have a dog in this. The "Portuguese" option is a little more uncommon, which may lend interest, but the "French" option can also be interesting, depending on how you finesse it.
I think I'd personally keep the distinction.Lao Kou wrote: So the question is this: Do I level the Japanese ち and じ/ぢ to <ch> [ʃ / ɕ] and <j> [ʒ / ʑ], and keep <tch> and <dj> for special occasions like <Tchad> and <Abidjan>? Or do I just suck it up, keep the Japanese ersatz-pronunciations, and not worry about the proliferation of <tch> and <dj> in the orthography?
Definitely a), in my opinion.Omzinesý wrote:Should Vålkakili (Imperfective) Past paradigm be (a or (b?
Basically, should third person forms be differentiated from SG1 and SG2 by a) lengthening the stem consonant, which can be explained by analogy to the corresponding present forms, or b) have no person/tense marker?
Re: Yay or Nay?
So it looks like the French option wins. Now, I need to avoid recreating French. ;)shimobaatar wrote:I'm afraid I don't have a strong opinion here, either, but the "French" option feels more realistic to me, for whatever that's worth.Lao Kou wrote:love-him/it(m)-FUT.1SGÆlfwine wrote:I'm not familiar with Portuguese tbh. Gloss?qwed117 wrote:So is the second one something like Portuguese amá-lo-ei? If so, I'd gladly say yes to that, else I'd stick to the French example
I will love him/it.
I don't have a dog in this. The "Portuguese" option is a little more uncommon, which may lend interest, but the "French" option can also be interesting, depending on how you finesse it.
Re: Yay or Nay?
I think it's still a 1 to 1 vote. Do what you feel the most comfortable with.Ælfwine wrote:So it looks like the French option wins. Now, I need to avoid recreating French. ;)shimobaatar wrote:I'm afraid I don't have a strong opinion here, either, but the "French" option feels more realistic to me, for whatever that's worth.Lao Kou wrote:love-him/it(m)-FUT.1SGÆlfwine wrote:I'm not familiar with Portuguese tbh. Gloss?qwed117 wrote:So is the second one something like Portuguese amá-lo-ei? If so, I'd gladly say yes to that, else I'd stick to the French example
I will love him/it.
I don't have a dog in this. The "Portuguese" option is a little more uncommon, which may lend interest, but the "French" option can also be interesting, depending on how you finesse it.
Spoiler:
-
- korean
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
Sorry, I guess assumed it would be clear I was referring to Ælfwine's original question. I meant that stacking enclitics feels more realistic to me than preserving Latin personal marking. Unless I'm misreading the conversation that followed and that is actually what Portuguese does? Yeah, I think it's likely I just misunderstood something. If I indeed ended up saying "this attested thing seems more realistic than this other attested thing", I obviously didn't intend to. In any case, I prefer the "French" way.loglorn wrote:I don't think i had ever heard "This anadew feels more realistic than this one" before.
-
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 18 Jan 2017 07:17
Re: Yay or Nay?
But the Portuguese option isn’t preserving Latin anything. It’s an enclitic pronoun placed before an auxiliary verb that was later grammaticalized as a future marker. Using Portuguese itself as a mock up:
tē amō > te amo > təm
tē amāvī > te amei > tme
tē amābam > te amava > tmau
amāre tē habeo > amar-te-ei > mate
amāre tē habēbam > amar-te-ia > matia
illam amās > a amas > amʃ
illam amāvisti > a amaste > amaʃ
illam amābās > a amavas > amauʃ
amāre illam habēs > amá-la-as > malaʃ
amāre illam habēbās > amá-la-ias > maliaʃ
That said, enclitics in the present, imperfect and preterite usually follow the verb in European Portuguese, but they can come before it in certain circumstances.
tē amō > te amo > təm
tē amāvī > te amei > tme
tē amābam > te amava > tmau
amāre tē habeo > amar-te-ei > mate
amāre tē habēbam > amar-te-ia > matia
illam amās > a amas > amʃ
illam amāvisti > a amaste > amaʃ
illam amābās > a amavas > amauʃ
amāre illam habēs > amá-la-as > malaʃ
amāre illam habēbās > amá-la-ias > maliaʃ
That said, enclitics in the present, imperfect and preterite usually follow the verb in European Portuguese, but they can come before it in certain circumstances.
[ˈaʃt̪əɹ ˈbalɨˌnɛsʲtʲəɹ]
Re: Yay or Nay?
Two questions. They're both relevant to the proto-lang I've shown on the random phonology thread.
First, should I limit consonantal monosyllables to the resonants (m, mh, n, nh, ñ, ñh, r, l, y, w)? And should I include fricatives as well?
This would change k·sèèw to kasèèw, which is the uglier of changes that result, but it would change ḍ·ñest to ḍañest, which is slightly better.
Next, should pluralization be present on nominal or verbal forms? Right now I think I'm trying to keep everything as auxiliaries on the verb, so we have
*sàà·l·gin r·nhat ñh·rààsid r·tèè yaskiik
brother IMP smell nine cow
brother is smelling nine cows.
Which would become
**sôì yâ šèí rē yáší
And
**soli iryat yiraz irte yasi
In two different descendants, assuming a direct correspondence of each word
Should I have r·nhat (auxiliary) be inflected, or ñh·rààsid (verb)? The benefit to the former is that right now, I'm only planning 4 simple auxiliaries, and the conjugation on the verbs would be haphazard due to the fact that iyèd contracts irregularly. The benefit to the latter is that to my knowledge it is the only answer that is truly attested in natlangs, other than not marking pluralization at all.
If I decide to have pluralization go only on the noun, should it be an auxiliary, because I don't have any declensions right now, and they wouldn't remain stable due to the sesquisyllabic nature of the lang. Then again, the sesquisyllables are what make it fun, and the declebisons are better attested (although French does provide attestation to marking only auxiliaries)
First, should I limit consonantal monosyllables to the resonants (m, mh, n, nh, ñ, ñh, r, l, y, w)? And should I include fricatives as well?
This would change k·sèèw to kasèèw, which is the uglier of changes that result, but it would change ḍ·ñest to ḍañest, which is slightly better.
Next, should pluralization be present on nominal or verbal forms? Right now I think I'm trying to keep everything as auxiliaries on the verb, so we have
*sàà·l·gin r·nhat ñh·rààsid r·tèè yaskiik
brother IMP smell nine cow
brother is smelling nine cows.
Which would become
**sôì yâ šèí rē yáší
And
**soli iryat yiraz irte yasi
In two different descendants, assuming a direct correspondence of each word
Should I have r·nhat (auxiliary) be inflected, or ñh·rààsid (verb)? The benefit to the former is that right now, I'm only planning 4 simple auxiliaries, and the conjugation on the verbs would be haphazard due to the fact that iyèd contracts irregularly. The benefit to the latter is that to my knowledge it is the only answer that is truly attested in natlangs, other than not marking pluralization at all.
If I decide to have pluralization go only on the noun, should it be an auxiliary, because I don't have any declensions right now, and they wouldn't remain stable due to the sesquisyllabic nature of the lang. Then again, the sesquisyllables are what make it fun, and the declebisons are better attested (although French does provide attestation to marking only auxiliaries)
Spoiler:
-
- korean
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
Yeah, that's what I thought, but I don't really know much at all about Portuguese.Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:But the Portuguese option isn’t preserving Latin anything. It’s an enclitic pronoun placed before an auxiliary verb that was later grammaticalized as a future marker. Using Portuguese itself as a mock up:
By "consonantal monosyllables" do you mean the sequisyllables made up of just one (syllabic?) consonant? If so, then I'd say yea to having just sonorants and fricatives be able to be syllabic.qwed117 wrote:Two questions. They're both relevant to the proto-lang I've shown on the random phonology thread.
First, should I limit consonantal monosyllables to the resonants (m, mh, n, nh, ñ, ñh, r, l, y, w)? And should I include fricatives as well?
I think I'd have the auxiliary be inflected.qwed117 wrote: Should I have r·nhat (auxiliary) be inflected, or ñh·rààsid (verb)? The benefit to the former is that right now, I'm only planning 4 simple auxiliaries, and the conjugation on the verbs would be haphazard due to the fact that iyèd contracts irregularly. The benefit to the latter is that to my knowledge it is the only answer that is truly attested in natlangs, other than not marking pluralization at all.
Re: Yay or Nay?
I like the Portuguese infected option very much. Maybe though I'll change it to match the phonotactics of Northeastern Iberia better though, or otherwise differentiate it:Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:But the Portuguese option isn’t preserving Latin anything. It’s an enclitic pronoun placed before an auxiliary verb that was later grammaticalized as a future marker. Using Portuguese itself as a mock up:
tē amō > te amo > təm
tē amāvī > te amei > tme
tē amābam > te amava > tmau
amāre tē habeo > amar-te-ei > mate
amāre tē habēbam > amar-te-ia > matia
illam amās > a amas > amʃ
illam amāvisti > a amaste > amaʃ
illam amābās > a amavas > amauʃ
amāre illam habēs > amá-la-as > malaʃ
amāre illam habēbās > amá-la-ias > maliaʃ
That said, enclitics in the present, imperfect and preterite usually follow the verb in European Portuguese, but they can come before it in certain circumstances.
te amo > t'amo [ta'mo]
te amai > t'ame [ta'me]
te amavi > t'amau [ta'mau]
etc.
Re: Yay or Nay?
I'd say leave it as it is.qwed117 wrote:Two questions. They're both relevant to the proto-lang I've shown on the random phonology thread.
First, should I limit consonantal monosyllables to the resonants (m, mh, n, nh, ñ, ñh, r, l, y, w)? And should I include fricatives as well?
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6352
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: Yay or Nay?
Isn't it sort of motivated by the same feeling that makes people say stuff like:loglorn wrote:I don't think i had ever heard "This anadew feels more realistic than this one" before.
"If Tariana were a conlang, everyone would be saying how unrealistic and unnaturalistic a kitchen-sink conlang it is",
or
"Some conlanger must have just made up the idea of 3Cons (tri-consonantal or tri-literal root or verb-root languages)"?
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
-
- korean
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Yay or Nay?
Well, that's not what I was trying to say, so, in this instance at least, it wasn't motivated by anything. loglorn was interpreting something I said before I realized I'd misunderstood something.eldin raigmore wrote:Isn't it sort of motivated by the same feeling that makes people say stuff like:loglorn wrote:I don't think i had ever heard "This anadew feels more realistic than this one" before.
"If Tariana were a conlang, everyone would be saying how unrealistic and unnaturalistic a kitchen-sink conlang it is",
or
"Some conlanger must have just made up the idea of 3Cons (tri-consonantal or tri-literal root or verb-root languages)"?
Re: Yay or Nay?
What's so "unnaturalistic" about Tariana? Complex, yes, but unnaturalistic?eldin raigmore wrote:Isn't it sort of motivated by the same feeling that makes people say stuff like:loglorn wrote:I don't think i had ever heard "This anadew feels more realistic than this one" before.
"If Tariana were a conlang, everyone would be saying how unrealistic and unnaturalistic a kitchen-sink conlang it is",
or
"Some conlanger must have just made up the idea of 3Cons (tri-consonantal or tri-literal root or verb-root languages)"?
Wipe the glass. This is the usual way to start, even in the days, day and night, only a happy one.
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Yay or Nay?
Here's something I'm thinking about in my conlang TLFKAT.
The maximal coda of a TLFKAT syllable is RCR where R is any non-vocalic continuant (such as /n l s ɬ x/ etc.) and the final CR is realised as an affricate (where the R assimilates to the PoA of the preceding C). Examples then of viable codas are things like st͡s xt͡ɬ lk͡ʟ̝̊ and so on.
Now, TLFKAT dislikes two continuants occurring in succession and generally the second continuant undergoes fortition to a corresponding affricate in such environments:
as + ła → astła, etc.
Now, in my original conception I also thought an affricate followed by a continuant would have a similar effect, so that for example:
ats + ła → atstła
But now I'm wondering whether it would be nicer if continuants were allowed to occur, unmolested, after an affricate coda in the preceding syllable, like so:
ats + ła → atsła
This would result in voiced segments being allowed to occur after unvoiced affricates, too:
atł + la → atłla
Here's an example with a maximal coda:
arqł + na → arqłna
Is that too inconsistent/weird?
The maximal coda of a TLFKAT syllable is RCR where R is any non-vocalic continuant (such as /n l s ɬ x/ etc.) and the final CR is realised as an affricate (where the R assimilates to the PoA of the preceding C). Examples then of viable codas are things like st͡s xt͡ɬ lk͡ʟ̝̊ and so on.
Now, TLFKAT dislikes two continuants occurring in succession and generally the second continuant undergoes fortition to a corresponding affricate in such environments:
as + ła → astła, etc.
Now, in my original conception I also thought an affricate followed by a continuant would have a similar effect, so that for example:
ats + ła → atstła
But now I'm wondering whether it would be nicer if continuants were allowed to occur, unmolested, after an affricate coda in the preceding syllable, like so:
ats + ła → atsła
This would result in voiced segments being allowed to occur after unvoiced affricates, too:
atł + la → atłla
Here's an example with a maximal coda:
arqł + na → arqłna
Is that too inconsistent/weird?