New CBB

Should I make the script for Kàmo an abugida?

Go for it. If it ends up not feeling right, then add whatever it needs until it does; worry about the classification later. That's what I did

Theta wrote: Should I make the script for Kàmo an abugida?

Depends on the syllable structure of Kàmo. I will never make an usable abugida for Séprthn because it has (C)(C)(C)N(C)(C) syllable structure.

Have you tried to expand the role of low tone? If low tone happens say 43% of the time instead of 25%, it would be a lot more balanced --- right?[/quote]
Well, I do like the imbalance. I'm considering getting rid of it because I've been bad about putting it my dictionary.

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

Never let laziness get in the way of a good idea!

_________________
Ikasmu ati'uki nai uraiur.
Hinai nimuśim naimi nai sasamiur urukani. Śi'ama nai huhumiur na ni'amuśim nai sasamiur.
Pumaki nimuśim śima'a na ami nimuśim ara'a. Hini nihrasum i'aku tumra urukani na nihrasum sanik hraspir.

Should I have animacy-based word order like Navajo, where the most animate noun must always come at the beginning of a clause?

_________________
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously

Why not?
Some conlang should be like Navajo; and your conlang should be like some natlang.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

Should I use [ʀ͡r] as a phoneme? I recently discovered I could pronounce it and was tempted to put it into a conlang even though it doesn't exist in any natlang that I'm aware of.

Wow, I just tried pronouncing that, and it sounds awesome. Move along, [ɮ], [ʀ͡r] is now my new favourite phoneme. And yes, you should use it.

_________________
Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. So study hard and be evil!

I think I made a homonym...should I keep both of these?:

ja [ʒæ] = die
ja [ʒæ] = whale

(the first one I coined today in the Translation folder - about bears. the second one, I had in my nonuploaded page of notes; part of the compound for "far")

It's fine if you do, regardless of what part of speech they belong to that you've withheld.

_________________
Up in blue sky silly blimp goes by
Where it come from where it go
Ziggy-Zaggy it fly high

Okay.

(I had been trying to get back to the stage where I only post updates once I have more than a paper-page of data to add to the conlang - that both cuts down on the "new post with only three lines"...and also encourages my creativity)

Should I add fricatives to Keoriki?

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

I have a personal love of fricatives.
Remember that all phoneme need not occur with equal frequency; if you're unsure, you can add them and simply use them sparingly.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

Should I use negative affixes on nouns, as opposed to verbs? I don't know of any natlangs which do this, but, conceptually, I think it should make sense in most cases.

It's difficult not to pack my langs full of them!

_________________
___________________ I am the Great Rabbit. Fear me, O Crabs!

Yes, you can try

German uses the nominal negation much more than English "Ich bin kein Mann" 'I'm not a man.'
If you have a scope of the negation, nominal negation is easy to attach to it. But if you have a just a (definite) subject: "The man (that doesn't exist) sleaps/The man doesn't sleap" are not the same. Of course you can use it in the form of your lang and ignore the semantic oddity.

Are thinking of having the nominal negation replacing clausal/verbal negation? That would be a bit weird, and I don't know whether it's attested in natlangs. But if you are thinking of having nominal negation together with verbal/clausal negation? That's extremely common - in fact, I think Wateu is rather unusual in not having any kind of nominal negation. (To say something like "I love nobody", you'll have to say something like "There does not exist any person that I love".)

Once you include nominal negation, there are a few things you need to decide about. How should the nominal negation interact with verbal/clausal negation? Especially, should you allow for double negation, or even make it obligatory? Should the nominal negation affix or word be the same as the verbal/clausal negator?

One further option exists. Negative affixes on nouns may be a kind of verbal/clausal negation (=their scope is the whole clause), only that they are attached to the nouns rather than the verb.

_________________
constructedlanguages.net

I was planning on having nominal negation only- no verbal negations, except in the occasional verb which is a "negated" version of another verb (I can't think of a good example, but something like English "run" versus "crawl"). I considered having clausal negation by the noun affixes, and I'm still willing to, but I think there could be some semantic fun in nominal negation.


From your example, consider "Not I sleep," this would be one way to negate the noun, showing that "I" did not sleep, while implying that other people do sleep; which is roughly equivalent to saying "I didn't sleep;" if asked "What did you do?", you would respond either "Not-me slept," implying that sleeping was an action which others were doing when you were not, or "I was awake", the positive equivalent of "I didn't sleep". If, then, you needed to say "Nobody doesn't sleep", you would have to either convert it to "Everybody sleeps", or say something like "Nobody stays awake." Does that make sense, or is there still some semantic quirks I've left uncovered?

Sounds reasonable.
'Not I' is, of course, a hypothetical object because there isn't anybody that does exactly what you don't.

My Gorrim, by the way, hasn't negation at all. The negation lies in the verb semantics, like "fail" "ignore"...