New CBB

Trmer is a fictional language, as you might expect. In real life, Trmer was inspired by my first contact with Morrocan Arabic and with Sumerian, although I hope other influences show up too, from Vietnamese, Japanese, and the Salishan languages.

In the conworld, Trmer is spoken by the Trmsti, an group of sailors and fisherman living in my conworld. The Trmer language is the far northwestern extreme of a dialect continuum. The speakers of the languages which fall into this continuum are called the Karmesot[1] by outsiders. This name has since been embraced as a general ethonym for speakers of this continuum. The Karmesot people share a general cultural heritage. Most of the Karmesot, especially of the outer islands and the eats, do not embrace the Skaolipi religion, and those who do are tend to ignore some of the stricter Skaolipi tenets. The Trmer are the most religious of the Karmesot, and thus have a reputation for being preachy and fundamentalist.

Historically, Trmer and most other Karmesot languages have undergone a sound change reducing most low vowels to schwas in unstressed syllable. Trmer has gone a step further, first deleting all schwas and then reducing unstressed high vowels to schwas. Finally, Proto-Karmesot's high central vowel became a schwa in all environments. A few other vowel changes have occured, as can be seen below:

Proto-Karmesot Vowels
i* ɨ* u*
e* o*
a*
Dipthongs:ai au

Vowel Reduction Changes from the Proto-Karmesot vowel system to Trmer
e,a,o/ə/_in unstressed syllables
ə//_
i,ɨ,u/ə/_in unstressed syllables
ɨ/ə/_
j,w,ʕ/i.u,a/_
e,o/ɛ,ɔ/_in closed syllables
ai,au/ɛ,ɔ/_
i,u/ɪ,ʊ/_


Modern Phonology
ɪ ʊ
e ə o
ɛ ɔ
a
<i e ɛ a ɔ o u ə>
/p b t d k ʔ ts dz tʃ s z ʃ ʒ ħ h m n ŋ ɾ l j w ʕ/<p b t d k ʔ c g q s z š j ħ h m n ĝ r l y w ʕ>

I use <g> for /dz/ because it is used that way in the native script.
Phonontactics
On the phonemic level, the syllable structure is this:
(C)(C)(C)(C)(V/S)(C)(C)
In reality, the epethentic vowel [ɨ] is commonly inserted between two plosives.
The majority of Trmer words are monosyllabic; if not, the other nuclei are either syllabic (as in the name) or a schwa. The sole exception to this is the negation circumfix ɪ-..-sɔɾ.
Voiceless Plosives cannot occur directly after vowels, or word finally.
There is some limited [+ATR] harmony. The negation circumfix ɪ-..-sɔɾ assimilates to the tongue root of the non-schwa, non-syllabic vowel. The tongue roots groups are as follows:
[+ATR]:/e a o/
[-ATR]:/ɪ ɛ ɔ ʊ/
Neutral:/ə/

Tone
There is a 2-tone system. The low tone is unwritten, and the high tone is written with a macron.



[1]The name Karmesot actually comes from the same word as Trmer- Taramestu. Karmesot was adapted to fit the phonology of the language which borrowed it.

EDIT:Changed the syllable structure.
EDIT2:Changed the orthography

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

= | = | =

Holy shit thats a big ass syllable!

I think that syllable structure went to McDonalds too many times and grew!

_________________
Visit the growing Conlang Wiki!

Do you have any sample words exemplifying that syllable structure? In the onset, can any six consonants occur in any order? Could you have a syllable like /ʧʤʔħpʦaʧʕ/?

_________________
constructedlanguages.net

Only about 31% of the languages in WALS.info's database for which syllable-structure is recorded, have syllables more complicated than (C)(C)V(C).
I couldn't find any five-or-more-consonant onset-clusters nor any five-or-more-consonant coda-clusters.
TTBOMK the maximal syllable structures are CCCCVCCC and CCCVCCCC. (Except apparently some linguists say Wichita has CCCCVCCCC. And maybe the French Wikipedia says Polish does, but I've also read that Polish's structure is (C)(C)V(C)(C) for monosyllabic words, (C)(C)V(C) for first syllables, (C)V(C)(C) for last syllables, and (C)V(C) for internal syllables.)
I believe CCCVCCC is rare.
In fact I think tautosyllabic three-or-more-consonant clusters are rare. That is, I think three-or-more-consonant onset-clusters are rare, and I think three-or-more-consonant coda-clusters are also rare.
See http://www.dogpile.com/search/web?&q=CCCVCCC http://www.dogpile.com/search/web?&q=CCCVCCCC http://www.dogpile.com/search/web?&q=CCCCVCCC.

Also see http://www.dogpile.com/search/web?&q=CCCCVCCCC http://www.dogpile.com/search/web?&q=CCCCVC http://www.dogpile.com/search/web?&q=CVCCCC.

You're likely to have a rule requiring rising sonority in onset-clusters and falling sonority in coda-clusters. If you don't have over 5 sonority-classes of consonant phonemes, then such a rule would limit tautosyllabic consonant-clusters (i.e. clusters of consonants in the same syllable) to 5; or whatever your number of sonority-classes of consonants is.

Here are some definitions that some linguists follow. There are alternates, but these are the ones I like, and the ones that I think are relevant to this thread.

A syllable nucleus either is the first phoneme of the word or is more sonorous than the preceding phoneme, and is either the last phoneme of the word or is more sonorous than the next phoneme. (So if a word has only one phoneme, that phoneme is a syllable and is the nucleus of that syllable.)

A syllable onset begins either at the first phoneme of the word if it is less sonorous than the next phoneme, or begins with a sonority-trough -- a phoneme that is less sonorous than the preceding phoneme and also less sonorous than the next following phoneme. A syllable onset ends just before the next syllable-nucleus.

A syllable coda ends either at the last phoneme of the word if it is less sonorous than the preceding phoneme, or ends just before a sonority-trough, that is, just before the next syllable-onset. A syllable coda begins just after the preceding syllable-nucleus.

---

By these definitions, every syllable has a nucleus.

Also, if you have a string of consonants ...C1C2C3... where C2 is more sonorous than both C1 and C3, then C2 must be a syllable nucleus.

If you want to use these definitions, you will have an implied rule, if not an explicit one, that sonority can never decrease in an onset and can never increase in a coda.

Given a consonant string ...C1C2C3...

If the sonority is rising all along, that is, C1 < C2 < C3, then C1 and C2 are part of an onset; whether or not C3 is also part of the onset, or is instead the nucleus, depends on whether a sound comes after C3, and which sound does if any.

If the sonority is falling all along, that is, C1 > C2 > C3, then C2 is, or is part of, a coda. C1 may be part of the same coda if it's preceded by a more-sonorous sound; otherwise C1 is a nucleus. C3 may be part of the same coda if it's the word's last sound, or it's followed by a less-sonorous sound; otherwise C3 begins the onset of the next syllable.

If C2 is a sonority-peak, that is, C1 < C2 > C3, then C2 is a syllable nucleus, and C1 is, or is part of, that syllable's onset. C3 is that syllable's coda if it's the word's last sound; it's part of that syllable's coda if it's followed by a less-sonorous sound; and it is or is part of the onset of the next syllable if it's followed by a more-sonorous sound.

If C2 is a sonority-trough, that is, C1 > C2 < C3, then C2 is a syllable onset or is the beginning of a syllable onset. C1 may be the nucleus of the preceding syllable if it is not preceded by a more-sonorous sound; otherwise it may be the coda of the preceding syllable, or the last sound of that coda. C3 may be the syllable nucleus of the syllable C2 is the onset of, if it is not followed by a more-sonorous sound; otherwise, it may be another part of the onset-cluster C2 begins.

---

These things being so (if they are), I think most of your very-long consonant-clusters will break up into more than one syllable.

If that's not what happens, then, you'll need to explain why you analyze those long clusters as onsets.

_________________
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.

On a phonetic level, they almost always do.
This is largely because one cluster may be a sequence of multiple plosives and fricatives, which act as one giant cluster.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of words do not get anywhere near that length. Most onset clusters are CC or CCC.

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

= | = | =

So like if it was klk it would probably be /kḷk/?

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

In what way(s) do the act as 'one giant cluster'?

_________________
constructedlanguages.net

There are certain infixes that are inserted directly after the first consonant or cluster, and they are inserted after those.

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

= | = | =

Yes! You got it.
Or, possibly, the first /k/ might be only the last part of the onset, if, for instance, it's preceded by a click in the same word.
Also, possibly, the second /k/ might be the beginning of the onset of the next syllable, if it's followed by a more sonorous sound in the same word, such as /m/; or, it might be just the beginning of this syllable's coda, if it's followed by a sound in the same word less sonorous than /k/, such as a click.



Fricatives are more sonorous than stops/plosives, so if you have /gzd/ the /z/ is a syllable nucleus.

I believe most affixes are suffixes, and most of the rest are prefixes. Infixes and circumfixes and transfixes and suprafixes are not usually abundant in the average language, as I understand it (I might be wrong I suppose), even though lots of languages have at least a few.

In order to pile up a lot of prefixes like that you'd need to have prefixes outnumber suffixes in your language. That doesn't happen much; on average, in most languages, suffixes outnumber prefixes about three to one.
In verb-initial languages (VSO and VOS), there are usually just about as many prefixes as suffixes. In verb-medial languages (SVO and OVS), suffixes usually outnumber prefixes, on average about two to one. In verb-final languages (SOV and OSV), suffixes usually outnumber prefixes, on average about five to one.

_________________
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.

Gender and Number
Trmer has 3 genders: Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter. The Masculine is unmarked. The other two genders are marked by prefixing and/or a process known as vowel movement.

Vowel Movement
Historically, the Feminine and Neuter were marked by the prefixes on- and a-. These affixes had a stress-attracting effect, carrying the stress accent one syllable up. Due to sound changes, unstressed vowels were either reduced or lost entirely, leaving behind the vowel movement as an indicator of gender. This is used as a supplement in the feminine, which retains the prefix n-, but in the neuter, it is the only marking. Vowel Movement even occurs in words with no other historical vowel, due to analogy.

Examples(Masculine Neuter Feminine, from right to left):
Jtʕɛb "Skirt": jtʕɛb-jotab-njotab
Muš "Nose": muš-əmš-nəmš
Diĝr "God": diĝr-odəĝr-indəĝr
Ti "Arrow": ti-otə-ində
Pimə "Oriole": pimə-opəmə-inbəmə

Semantics of Gender Assignment and Gender changing
Gender assignment is usually Semantic. However, many large round inanimate things are masculine, and some small, non-round things are feminine.

Changing grammatical gender varies from word to word. If the noun refers to a role, such as Niptu"Emperor" or ʔke"host", the gender can easily be altered. For some neuter inanimate terms that are closely associated with one gender, such as Šksas"Sand Glider"[1], they can be changed to only one gender. In the case of Šksas, that gender is Masculine. Most other inanimate objects can change to any gender, such as Mumu "Muumuu"[2], which can be Masculine, Feminine, or Neuter. In many case, the gender change is associated with the person who is in control of the object. For instance, if a woman was wearing the muumuu, it would probably be Feminine. If a man was wearing it, it would probably be Masculine. And if it was lying on the ground, it would probably be neuter. All other words do not change gender.

Number
Trmer marks a distinction between the singular and the Associative Plural. The latter is formed by geminating the final consonant.
Kɛps->Kɛpss
Ħšat->Ħšatt

If the final letter is a vowel, the associative plural is unmarked.



[1]Sand Gliders are closely associated with men, because only men are allowed on trips into the deserts.
[2] A little joke! In world, this is a loanword from Parxu Mỹby.

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

= | = | =

Looks fine to me, especially if there's an epenthetic vowel. You might want to read about the Aslian languages; they're somewhat similar, in that they have massive clusters and mostly monosyllabic words, but the clusters are usually broken up by epenthetic vowels. The difference, though, is that they generally have a much more restrictive syllable structure for roots, that's added to by affixation and batshit fucking nuts reduplication processes, so in Semai, where (iirc) the upper bound for roots is CCVC, you can still get words like /lllaːl/, /snjlaːj/, and /kckmrʔɛːc/.


what

The Aslian languages are the greatest, IMO.


On a phonemic level, not a phonetic one.

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

= | = | =

what does it mean to say that the majority of syllables are monosyllabic

a syllable cannot be anything other than monosyllabic. if it is not monosyllabic, it's more than one syllable. by definition.

Sorry, I meant words.

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

= | = | =

If it's not monosyllabic, it could be merosyllabic (a fraction of a syllable). (But of course it still wouldn't be a syllable.)

_________________
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.

Definiteness and Topicality

Definiteness
There is a three-way distinction in definiteness between the indefinite, the definite, and the construct state. The definite is unmarked. The indefinite is marked by the suffix -rħ. The construct state is marked by the suffix -k. None of these suffixes causes vowel movement.

Topicality
Trmer marks the topicality of nouns with the suffix -ʔ. -ʔ does not cause vowel movement

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

= | = | =

How does the topicality work? (I ask 'cos I don't understand it in general.)
The topics are normally definite or general. Can the topicmarker and the definite acticle be both added? How is generic/non-referential noun treated?

Is the construct state used for other purposes than marking the possed noun, eg. with prepositions?

Wow. I like the phonology of this language. I want full sentences to see the grammar!

_________________
= | = | = | = | = | =
‹› · Ḿḿ Ńń Ĺĺ Śś Źź Ąą Ǫǫ Ųų Æ̨æ̨ Ǽǽ Œ̨œ̨ Œ́œ́ Ɣɣ Y̋y̋ Įį Şş Z̧z̧ θ
Āā Ēē Īī Ōō Ūū ↗ Ṭṭ C̣c̣ Łł Ḍḍ Ṣṣ Ẓẓ Ṇṇ Ŋŋ e˞ o˞ ʷ ʲ ʰ ə

Topicality marks the "focus" of the sentence (I know this is an imperfect definition).
It is uncommon to have the topic be indefinite, but it occasionally occurs.
It is.


Thanks. I was worried that the phonology was a little too European, though.

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

= | = | =

That's confusingly nonstandard terminology. (I don't mind the nonstandardness so much; it's the confusingness that bothers me.)

In standard terminology, topics are what the comment or sentence is about; or, they are "broad subjects" and there may be an additional "narrow subject"; or, they are given information rather than new information. The speaker expects that the rest of his/her utterance will be understood by the addressee if the addressee is thinking about the topic; but maybe not if the addressee is not thinking about the topic.

In standard terminology, focus is a different pragmatic function than topic. Focus (that is, "focus of emphasis" aka "emphatic focus", as opposed to "focus of empathy" aka "point of view") is usually the main or most important new information in the clause or sentence; or, if the sentence is an interrogative, the focus is the question-word if there is one; or, the focus of the sentence is the part that the speaker thinks the addressee most needs to keep in mind for the rest of the conversation.

In standard terminology, when one is introducing a new topic, the new topic is the focus. Otherwise, in standard terminology, the focus and the topic are necessarily distinct.

So if you're going to mark the focus, call it "focus"; don't call it "topic".

OTOH if you're going to mark the topic, look up a better definition of topic.

_________________
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.