Bunesa

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Hello, CBB. I've been away for a while now, but I'd like to come back to introduce you to a brand spanking old project, and my fourth (fifth?) thread: Bunesa! Bunesa is a protolang that has been in development half-assedly for a long time now. Over the past month or so I've decided to start writing out a very detailed manuscript on it. So, I figured to force myself to keep the project going, I would cross-post my work on here.

Bunesa (sometimes jocularly called Proto-Snout) is the protolang of the (currently hiatused for the millionth time) language Vuase. It's also the protolang of Vuase's many sisters that I hope to flesh out by fleshing out this lang. I will star this section by introducing the phonology a bit. More specifically, in this section we will be discussing consonants and vowels! Bare in mind that I will be using terminology that references competing theories on certain aspects of this language frequently. I do this to try to give it an air of reconstruction, rather than me giving imperical facts.

The phonemic inventory of Bunesa is relatively simple. That is to say, there aren’t a lot of phonemes (20 in total: 15 consonants and 5 vowels). Since we are firstly discussing consonants, let me show you the complete list of them. I will then go over the individual parts in more detail:

/m n/ m n
/p b t d k g* ʔ/ p b t d k g '
/s z h*/ s z h
/w r j/ w r j

Quickly, let me say that the orthography of Bunesa is entirely phonemic, and not phonetic. The reason I decided this was firstly because it’s easier to spell, and as a nice side effect it helps determine morphemes better than if it were phonetic. Besides that, though, what you first might be asking after viewing this table is “what are the asterisks for?” Allow me to explain.

I will start with /g/, as it appears first in the table sequentially. This is either realized as /ŋ/ or /g/. It’s sometimes debated whether this is actually an individual consonant of dubious nasality, if it’s just /g/ with an allophonological [ŋ] form (or vice versa), or (unlikely) that they were seperate consonants. Most who say it’s an allophonic distinction believe that /g/ became [ŋ] before a vowel. For the sake of consensus, I will always default to the “most accepted” theory, and in this instance will just write it as /g/ for ease of typing, but it’s more accurate to call it /g~ŋ/ or something similar.

The second is /h/. There is a lot more agreement as to the status of this consonant. This consonant, as most believe, was within free variation of /x/ and /h/, and sometimes even the things in between. The voicing of this consonant is somewhat debated, though people who believe that /g*/ is /ŋ/ believe /H/ to be /x/, with the idea that Proto-Snout had no voiced velar obstruents.

There is still more to be unpacked from this chart, however. Namely, the voiced stops. These are /b d/, and sometimes /g/. Some interpretations, and the one that is the most accepted is that these were interchangeable with [v ð ɣ], respectively. Another, slightly controversial interpretation is that /d/ was interchangeable with [l] or even that /d/ was primarily realized as [l]. That theory is not very widely accepted, and often discredited as being “Uvis-centric” (Uvis being both the most widely spoken family of Proto-Snout daughterlangs, and the only dialect of Bunesa whose daughters retain an /l/)

With consonants briefly dealt with, it’s time to turn our attention to vowels. As with the section on consonants, I will display a list containing all the phonemic vowels in Bunesa, and then expand upon them:

/i ɨ u o* a/ i e u o a

You might be thinking that since there are less vowels than consonants, that there’s less to talk about. Not true; for example, /o/ is interesting for its unknown articulation. I will heretofore transcribe the vowel as /o/, not just because it’s easier to write without needing to copy/paste IPA letters on a computer, but also because it’s the most accepted interpretation. However, it’s more accurate–or even just more inclusive–to say that the vowel I transcribe as /o/ is an “openish backish roundish vowel”, as its true pronunciation is said to be anywhere from /o/ to /ɑ/.

Another vowel with a slightly more dubious pronunciation is /ɨ/. Though that is the generally agreed-upon realization, in the past it was believed to be closer to /ɪ~e/. Even now, there are competing theories that it should instead be somewhere along the lines of /ə/. Speaking of, Bunesa was also said by many to contain syllabic consonants. I decided to wait until the vowel section to discuss it because of its intersectionality with vowels. Anyway, these syllabic consonants are said to be /m̩ n̩ r̩/. Those same Uvis-Centrists also tend to include /l̩/ in this list, and there are some even still who conjecture that any consonant was able to be syllabic. Although, this has been shown to instead be simply /ɨ/ next to a consonant. in the orthography, I will either write these syllabic consonants as ḿ ń ŕ or will leave them unmarked, depending on how much I care.

Bunesa is also sometimes said to have long vowels. This is often refuted, however, that instead there were a large amount of diphthongs in Bunesa, which in some dialects/daughter families derived into long vowels. The most accepted theory is that a diphthong can consist of V+/i/ or /u/ (where V is any vowel.) These diphthongs are written <Vj> and <Vw> respectively. Take note that /ii̯/ and /uu̯/ are not allowed, however. Some interpretations also include Vɨ diphthongs, but it’s likely that most–if not all–of these supposed occurrence of them were instead Vi clusters. Speaking of, vowel sandhi is also speculated to have occurred. Although, because of the large variance of this phenomenon in Bunesa’s daughters, it’s instead assumed that there was simply a hiatus between vowels.

Of course, there is much more to talk about with Bunesa phonology. The next section I will discuss stress, pitch and possibly also allophony depending on how long the post gets. That being said, I'd love to hear your feedback of what you think so far, even if it's not much. I'll try to post every day, and respond as quickly as possible.
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1728
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Re: Bunesa

Post by loglorn »

Nice protolang feeling you gave to your protolang, as repetitive as that may sound, i am utterly unable at presenting my protolangs as reconstructed an whatnot, exactly because on my end they're not reconstructed.

I'd say the inventories are minimalist, if not exaggeratedly so. I like conlangs that are reasonably out of my creative ruts, and i'd say this is the case.

Eager to see some more juicy stuff on phonology and even juicier stuff on the rest of the language.

Don't have all that constructive comment to do except that i subscribe to the syllabic consonants hypothesis, because syllabic consonants are just awesome.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

loglorn wrote:Nice protolang feeling you gave to your protolang, as repetitive as that may sound, i am utterly unable at presenting my protolangs as reconstructed an whatnot, exactly because on my end they're not reconstructed.
Thank you! I basically took every idea I had for this language, and when I decided on one that I liked the most, I made that the dominant hypothesis, with the rest being competing.
loglorn wrote:I'd say the inventories are minimalist, if not exaggeratedly so. I like conlangs that are reasonably out of my creative ruts, and i'd say this is the case.
The reason the phonology is so small is because I based it (loosely, as someone knowledgeable would be able to ascertain) on Proto-Uto-Aztecan. In fact, a lot of basic gammar concepts I had previously lifted directly from PUA and have since manipulated it until Bunesa became its own unique entity.
loglorn wrote:Don't have all that constructive comment to do except that i subscribe to the syllabic consonants hypothesis, because syllabic consonants are just awesome.
Well, I'll let you know right now then that a branch of Proto-Snout does contain a hefty amount of syllabic consonants, because I too find them to be a devious amount of fun [:P]
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Bunesa

Post by qwed117 »

I like it so far. As loglorn mentioned, it genuinely feels reconstructed, rather than a drab proto-lang. Also interesting is the fact that "Bunesa" looks like "Vuase", but not close enough that you really are sure of the diachronics within the two. And that's what I'm going to be pumped to hear about.
Corphishy wrote:With consonants briefly dealt with, it’s time to turn our attention to vowels. As with the section on consonants, I will display a list containing all the phonemic vowels in Bunesa, and then expand upon them:

/i ɨ u o* a/ i e u o a
Interesting vowel inventory. I wonder how ɨ is reconstructed over e. Maybe a yery-like process operates over it in some languages. Maybe there's a Slavic-inspired hidden in Bunesa. Also interesting is the o~ɑ reconstruction. I assume in multiple languages the <o> lowers significantly.

I also don't understand how the diphthongs play into the long-vowel question, but I look forward to hearing about why. Will there be multiple reconstructions shown? (Eg, how WP shows both Sihler and Beekes for PIE reconstructions)
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Sorry I'm going to be away for the week.
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 10371
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: UTC-04:00

Re: Bunesa

Post by shimobaatar »

I'm also a fan of how you're presenting this as a reconstructed language. Might I ask where the nickname "Snout" comes from?
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Sorry for being away for awhile. Some personal things got in the way, and I had become a little burnt out from forcing myself to write stuff about this language. However, I will chug along and get another post out later tonight or sometime tomorrow. For now let me answer that one question that was asked...
shimobaatar wrote:Might I ask where the nickname "Snout" comes from?
Well, I don't have a picture of a map of the conworld, but if you can imagine a continent roughly the shape of a dinosaur head, that is the continent on which Bunesa is spoken. The reason I have named it Proto-Snout is because the Bunesa language family is spoken along the western coast of the continent, which is the "snout" of the "dinosaur." Let me also specify that the shape of the continent was not on purpose and has no significance, it just happened to end up that way.
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Okay. So, again, I'm sorry for making you guys wait for so long. If you know the history of my threads, they tend to necro, much to my dismay. I don't want that to happen to this thread, but sometimes you just need a break. Let's talk about what was promised from me: stress and pitch. I thank loglorn immensely for helping me through this, by the way.

Before we get into the nitty gritty, though, we first need to understand the syllable structure of Bunesa. It's very basic: CVC. However, depending on your reconstruction, if V is a diphthong, then the maximum syllable is CV.

By the way, let me tak another aside to answer another question:
qwed117 wrote:I also don't understand how the diphthongs play into the long-vowel question, but I look forward to hearing about why. Will there be multiple reconstructions shown? (Eg, how WP shows both Sihler and Beekes for PIE reconstructions)
Now, of course, this is two questions. With regards to the first one, the part that diphthongs play in long vowels is that it's believed that almost all long vowels which occur phonemically in Bunesa's daughters is a result of diphthongs monophthongizing. As for the multiple interpretations, the answer is maybe, but not likely in Bunesa's current state.

Sorry to get sidetracked. I am writing this kind of stream of consciousness, as this part of the manuscript hasn't been completed yet, even though I have all the information.

So, now that you know what a syllable looks like, theres also a question of syllable weight. This is very important with regards to what syllable is able to be primarily stressed. A heavy syllable is any syllable that ends in either a diphthong or a consonant, and a light syllable is all the other syllables.

Aside from syllable weight, stress is also determined by feet. A foot in Bunesa, according to this hypothesis, is exclusively two syllables. These feet are formed from the right, and primary stress is placed on the last foot (that is, the last foot if read from right to left). Primary stress is placed on the heaviest syllable in the foot. If there is no heaviest syllable, stress goes to the left-most syllable. However, if there is both no heaviest syllable, and there is a half-foot (i.e. a word with an odd number of syllables) then that half-foot is the one that is stressed.

Now, that was a mouthful and a half to say the least. Hopefully I was able to be understood, but if not I'd love to share some example words. Now for something simple: secondary stress is placed on the penultimate syllable, except for if the penultimate syllable is directly next to, or is, the primarily stressed syllable. This is a point that is important to the pitch accent. Let me also say that what I am describing is just one interpretation. Another interpretation states that the stress system of Proto-Snout was phrasal instead of word-internal. This will become important when i talk about inflection/agreement.

Now that you know the stress, we can talk pitch. Now, please please please correct me if I'm wrong on ajy point of how pitch accents work. The pitch of the primarily stressed syllable is determined also by its weight. Because of the way the stress system works, the stressed syllable can be both heavy or light. If the syllable is heavy it is low pitched, and if it's light it's high pitched. This only applies to the stressed syllable, and every other syllable is determined by the pitch of the stressed syllable, except for two: the half-foot and the secondarily stressed syllable. These also obey the rule of heavy=low & light=high. Also, more than two of the same pitch cannot occur next to one another. When this happens, the third syllable (going left to right) switches to the opposite pitch, and that pattern repeats itself.

Again, I apologize if this was confusing wall of text. I also apologize that this section doesn't have much in the way of multiple interpretations, as I would need to make multiple different forms of stress which all end up yielding the same results in daughter languages, and I don't know enough about how complex stress systems work and develop. This language, like all languages, is a work in progress to be sure. So any feedback would be greatly appreciated [:)].
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Oh hell: I forgot to talk about how pitch is marked in the orthography. Generally, it isn't. This is mostly because a) like most things about the phonology and orthography, it's easier to write that way, and b) from what I have shown, stress and thus pitch is regular and predictable.

If you wish to mark pitch, however, you can use the grave accent for low pitch and/or the acute accent for high pitch. So if you want, this language is actually properly called Búnesa [ˈbú.nɨ.sa] and the pitch of each syllable is HHL.
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

I am abandoning this project. Sorry. I've carried this monster over my shoulder for 6 years now. This isnt a personal project: I don't feel like I'm making this language for my own benfit or for fun, I feel like I'm making this language because I need to justify all that time sunk. Again, I'm sorry if this project interested you, but it doesn't interest me any longer.
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Bunesa

Post by qwed117 »

Corphishy wrote:I am abandoning this project. Sorry. I've carried this monster over my shoulder for 6 years now. This isnt a personal project: I don't feel like I'm making this language for my own benfit or for fun, I feel like I'm making this language because I need to justify all that time sunk. Again, I'm sorry if this project interested you, but it doesn't interest me any longer.
It's unfortunate to hear this, but your enjoyment should come first. We all do this as a hobby, not as a profession. It's okay to let go of your conlangs. I've done it to quite a few. So don't worry/
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 10371
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: UTC-04:00

Re: Bunesa

Post by shimobaatar »

qwed117 wrote:
Corphishy wrote:I am abandoning this project. Sorry. I've carried this monster over my shoulder for 6 years now. This isnt a personal project: I don't feel like I'm making this language for my own benfit or for fun, I feel like I'm making this language because I need to justify all that time sunk. Again, I'm sorry if this project interested you, but it doesn't interest me any longer.
It's unfortunate to hear this, but your enjoyment should come first. We all do this as a hobby, not as a profession. It's okay to let go of your conlangs. I've done it to quite a few. So don't worry/
[+1] This was fun while it lasted, but if you're no longer feeling it, then that's totally fine.
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

I think I’ve had enough of a break. I’ve for so long after shelving this language been struggling and vexing over trying to make another language. I’d draw up a phonology, maybe make a few words or some grammar bits and then just get bored of it within minutes. This activity of mine which has for the longest time brought me so much joy is now bringing me apathy and frustration. I think, as well, that Bunesa is something that I need to continue; not for any other reason than because I want to. I’ve wanted this language to be done and perfect for so long, but I think stepping back has made me realize that I just need to slow down and try to make something instead of try to finish something. If you try to go from A to C, without first going from A to B, all you’ll ever get is frustrated. That’s what a motivational video I watched in 8th grade told me at least.

So, firstly, I’m going to come at this from a different perspective, and also with different techniques. I’m, for the most part, going to stop the “intentionally speculative” nature of these posts, as it causes a whole lot of headache with only a little bit of payoff beyond the aesthetic flair it provides. Other than that, basically everything I have written about this language so far is still true–that is to say, I don’t plan to redo this entire language from scratch again.

Before I abandoned this project, I was attempting to draw up a description for the basics of Bunesa grammar. So, the next post, which will probably be soon after this one, will be on that. Don’t turn that dial folks, because Bunesa is back on the airwaves, baby!
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Let me start by talking about word order. Word order is, in my opinion, one of the most basic grammatical concepts, and is in fact one of the first things people work out in their languages (at least, again, in my experiences). Bunesa has, generally, an SVO word order. However, Bunesa likes to do fun things with word order to signify other grammatical bits.

For example, “verb backing” is the process by which Bunesa marks the imperfective aspect by placing the verb at the very end of a clause, effectively changing the word order to SOV. The other thing that Bunesa does is switch the object and subject around. This is used as a marker for passive voice. Very standard stuff I suppose. Also, the indirect object of a clause can go wherever with little changes to semantic meaning, but prefers to stay before the verb, and in fact cannot be after the verb in an imperfective construction.
Another thing to note is the directionality of things. Though the word order tends to shift around a bit, directionality tends to stay the same. Bunesa is a decidedly head initial language. However, the only time this really changes is during imperfective constructions, in that modifiers of the verb are pushed before it so that the verb can be at the very end of the clause.

I was going to talk about morphosyntwctic alignment next, but it’s just a pretty bog standard nom-acc; so I will instead cover that more in depth when I discuss nouns, starting with number and case. Hope this short little section was worth the wait for you guys!
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Nouns in Bunesa are declined according to two categories: number and case.

There are generally considered to be two numbers, which are singular and plural. The singular form is unmarked, but there are multiple ways for marking the plural form. The most common form is via reduplication; more specifically, the reduplication of the roots final syllable. So, for example, the plural form of bume “beast” is bumeme “beasts.”

The second most common form uses the suffix -en derived from the word for “many,” en. The difference between whether you use this form or the more common reduplication form is that generally, reduplication isn’t used for monosyllabic words, or words with two final syllables which already repeat. Take the word ansisi “sand” for example. It might be ambiguous as to whether ansisi means “many grains of sand” and a hypothetical *ansi means “one grain of sand,” or if ansisi is actually just a singular form. Such a “confusion” is present in Vuase, for example, where the word asi does in fact mean “grain of sand.” In fact, some languages, mostly the northern ones, have almost entirely gotten rid of reduplicating plurals and almost exclusively use this form.

The last form of plural is a different form of reduplication. This form is a complete-word reduplication (hence why monosyllabic words are generally not reduplicated. Because they could be, and in fact are usually, considered to be using this kind of reduplication). This form is different from the other two in that it actually has a semantic difference. This is considered a collective form for count nouns, and normal plural for non-count nouns. Consider seja “mountain” vs. sejaseja “mountain range,” and berad “alcohol” vs. beradberad “alcohols (in the sense of different kinds of alcohol: wine vs beer vs rum, etc.).”

Most other forms of plurals, and other numbers, are purely dialectical, and are not considered as part of the canonical Bunesa grammar. I said I was going to discuss both number and case in this section, but I think I should pace myself. I don’t want to overwork myself and get burnt out again. So next time, after I’ve had some time to think and work stuff out, I’ll discuss noun case. Please, comment if you need any clarification or extra info about Bunesa numbers.
Last edited by Corphishy on 21 Jun 2017 18:43, edited 1 time in total.
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

So let’s dive right into it. There are 7 cases in Bunesa. They are each divided into three “categories” based on their functions. The first two are the “alignment cases.” Bunesa is considered to be an accusative language, and is pretty standard in that way.

Nominative-the nominative case is, very simply, the base form of a given noun. It is the agent of any given verb. I say agent, and not subject, because, for example, in passive constructions, the object of the verb is still marked as nominative because it is the agent. This is also the form used when compounding or deriving. It is the unmarked form, and is considered the “root” form. Very standard stuff

Accusative-this case is the partner to the nominative case. It marks the patient of a verb. Generally, the way to mark the accusative is to add -i from the pre-Bunesa postposition, related to the verb jah “to come.” This is the form from which most other noun forms are derived, and is the form used with postpositions.
The next two are what are known as the “possessive cases.” There are actually two different ways of marking possessive based on alienable vs. inalienable possession. They do also have other uses beyond that, but this is their “main” function.

Genitive-this is the case primarily used for inalienable possession. This form is unique in that besides the nominative, it is the only case not derived using the accusative form of the noun. It is also unique in that this form generally doesn’t distinguish plurality. This is, supposedly, due to the fact that it was derived from an adjectival suffix, this being -as (Bunesa now uses multiple other adjectivizing derivations, which I will discuss at some point.) As such, the possessing goes after the possessed, in typical adjective form.

Instrumental-“Do what now?” you might be asking. “In basically every other language, the instrumental is used for something completely unrelated to possessives!” And you’d be right. The original, and thus the named purpose of the instrumental case is “to indicate that a noun is the instrument or means by or with which the subject achieves or accomplishes an action” (Wikipedia). Basically translating as “with,” this case is also used as an alienable possessive. In actuality, it can be said that this construction is more of a “construct state,” as the possessed is the one marked with the instrumental case (ʔairu utŕas “horse’s hair” vs. udasimi dukte “cup’s water” or literally “cup with water”). Notice that the instrumental noun comes before the noun it modifies, instead of after. Since it is an indirect object, it can technically go wherever it pleases, but I just decided to place it there for funsies.
The last three also have their own category together. These are the “local cases.” These, as the name implies, relate to motion towards and from things. Very simple stuff.

Lative-“towards.” Describing motion towards a noun, this case (as well as the ablative) is unique in its use of prefixes. In Bunesa, most things are head initial-except for demonstratives. The origin of the lative case prefix is jur-, and comes from a pre-Bunesa demonstrative that survives as jeud “here.” Note as well that the prefix also uses the accusative form of the noun, which, I suppose, technically makes it a circumflex.

Ablative-“from.” The ablative case is used with motion away from a noun. The way to derive this is similar to its sibling, in that you use a prefix ir- from the demonstrative jera “there” coupled with the accusative form.

Locative-“at, in, on,” etc. This represents a stationary location, as opposed to the other twos’ implication of motion. This case is also used for marking the indirect object, and thus can be said to double as a dative. Unlike the other members of this category, it does not make any use of prefixes, and the case suffix is -ire, deriving from the pre-Bunesa postposition for “inside” which, like the accusative, survives as the verb ere “to dwell, live (in).”
And that’s all for noun cases. I refrained from making a chart, as I despise them. However, I might as I fear that there might be a little too much reading that a simple table could tell you very quickly. But for now it’s two in the morning for me. Good night, or good morning as it were. Tune in next time when I may or may not discuss noun class/animacy.
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Due to demand from a friend/editor of mine, I will now include a table of all of the information I presented several hours ago:
Image
Note however that this only shows the -en plural. For the other plural forms, you simply preform the required reduplication, and then add the “singular” form of the suffix.
So I have decided against incorporating noun class/animacy distinction in Bunesa for the time being. Maybe later. For now it’s just a little too much of a headache if I want to get it as right as I want it. No, for today I will be discussing verbs. Specifically the tense/aspect relationship.

Basically said, Bunesa has two aspects and two tenses: perfective vs. imperfective, and past vs. non-past. All of these forms are marked, and their constituent parts combine in a lightly agglutinative way. For convenience sake, let me again show you a table illustrating the particular endings, and below that a detailed explanation for these forms.
Image
Past perfective-this verb form is, quite simply, used as the past tense.

Non-past perfective-this form is used when discussing the present tense,

Past imperfective-this verb form is similar to a “cessative.” It is a somewhat rare combination, not having nearly as many use-cases as the other three.

Non-past imperfective-this is similar to its other non-past sister in that it specifies the future tense.
Oddly you’ll find that these tenspectual forms have way more specific and limited uses as opposed to the seven noun cases. In fact, you’ll maybe find that these are just glorified tenses. And you’d be right. To be honest, at the moment I’m not sure of many other interesting things I could do with these verb forms. Maybe one of you fine viewers would be able to assist?

Besides that, you might also have noticed that the imperfective aspect is marked. Why is this, given that Bunesa already explicitly tells you if a verb is imperfective by having it at the back of a sentence? The reason for this is a) because redundancy is good for languages, and b) the word order shift is believed to have occurred later in Bunesa’s development, meaning that at one point the suffixation was the only way to tell.
I apologize that this section is a little bare on content. I’d rather post something than post nothing because it isn’t perfect and finished. Verbs (and grammar in general) has always been my weakest points when it comes to making conlangs. Also, I don’t know what to post next. I’d like to know what you all are itching to see/know about with this language? As always, thanks for tuning in :).
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Forget about basically everything that I just wrote. I hated writing it. The conjugations seemed so random and arbitrary without any kind of life or character to them. So, instead of moping about it, I am going to completely redo it. That's right, a double post, baby!
So for starters, verbs generally only conjugate for two things: tense and person. The past tense is the marked form, and is loosely related to the word irere "backwards, behind."

Then, prefixed onto the verbs are the two person markers. These are u- for the first person and ta-. If you know your Bunesa vocab, which you probably don't, you will recognize these as being visually and etymologically similar to us and to, the first and second person pronouns respectively. However, these two are almost only used as the patient forms, as verbs will always only agree to the agent of the sentence. The only time one uses to as the agent (which produces a redundant conjugation) is for politeness.

You might be wondering why theres only two persons. The reason is because the so-called "second person" actually doubles as a third person conjugation as well. Take the sentence rai tatur "they (sg) walk." Even though rai is technically a third person pronoun (in reality it is the demonstrative "that," which is also used for such a purpose), the "second person" is used.

Also, sometimes verbs will also distinguish number. This is almost always optional, and in common speech is usually left alone. The way to do this is simply to reduplicate the final syllable of the root. Much like with nouns reduplicating, you simply add the past tense suffix after doing such.
So telling whether a verb is perfective or Imperfective is very simple. Is it at the end of a sentence? If yes, its imperfective. If no, its perfective. However, I do ask that you refer back to my little list as to what the tense+aspect combinations all mean, because that part of the post I still like. I would like to think of other things that they could mean, but for now I'll leave it where it lies.

All other aspectual thingamawhatzits are handled periphrastically. In this case, the verb is also pushed back to the back. I don't have any specific examples, but I'm sure if prompted I could come up with some.
Sorry for the lackluster first draft, I just felt kind of rushed to slap something together. I feel a lot better now though. I again eagerly await comments on what I can improve or expound upon!
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Bunesa

Post by Creyeditor »

Corphishy wrote: The next two are what are known as the “possessive cases.” There are actually two different ways of marking possessive based on alienable vs. inalienable possession. They do also have other uses beyond that, but this is their “main” function.

Genitive-this is the case primarily used for inalienable possession. This form is unique in that besides the nominative, it is the only case not derived using the accusative form of the noun. It is also unique in that this form generally doesn’t distinguish plurality. This is, supposedly, due to the fact that it was derived from an adjectival suffix, this being -as (Bunesa now uses multiple other adjectivizing derivations, which I will discuss at some point.) As such, the possessing goes after the possessed, in typical adjective form.

Instrumental-“Do what now?” you might be asking. “In basically every other language, the instrumental is used for something completely unrelated to possessives!” And you’d be right. The original, and thus the named purpose of the instrumental case is “to indicate that a noun is the instrument or means by or with which the subject achieves or accomplishes an action” (Wikipedia). Basically translating as “with,” this case is also used as an alienable possessive. In actuality, it can be said that this construction is more of a “construct state,” as the possessed is the one marked with the instrumental case (ʔairu utŕas “horse’s hair” vs. udasimi dukte “cup’s water” or literally “cup with water”). Notice that the instrumental noun comes before the noun it modifies, instead of after. Since it is an indirect object, it can technically go wherever it pleases, but I just decided to place it there for funsies.
I really like these. Can they cooccur?
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
Corphishy
greek
greek
Posts: 740
Joined: 18 May 2013 18:28
Location: Route 102, Route 117, Petalburg City

Re: Bunesa

Post by Corphishy »

Creyeditor wrote:I really like these. Can they cooccur?
I would say no. Mostly because I wouldn't even know what that would mean. I mean, you might be able to say something like kutimi was to taka'o diptŕi "You cut the bread with my knife." But they couldn't both function as possessives of each other or something confusing like that.
Aszev wrote:A good conlang doesn't come from pursuing uniqueness. Uniqueness is usually an effect from creating a good conlang.
Project Garnet
(used to be Bulbichu22)
Post Reply