Itasaq- my go at a triconsonantal conlang

[CarsonDaConlanger]

Phonology
Nasal: /m m: n n:/ m mm n nn
Plosive: /t t' ʈ ʈ' tʃ tʃ' k k' kw k'w q q' ʔ/ t tt d dd c cc k kk ḳ ḳḳ q qq '
Fricative: /f f: s s: ʂ ʂ: χ χ: ħ h/ f ff s ss z zz ç çç ḥ h
Lat. Approx: /l/ l
Approx: /w j ʁ ʕ/ w j ṙ g
flap: /ɾ r:/ r rr

Vowels
/i u/i u
/a o/a o
+length ā /a:/ ect.

Most roots are triconsonantal, and nouns have two base forms:
Absolutive: CaCaC
Inflected: CāCCa
Case markers are prefixed to the inflected form.
I.E.
saqal- word
saqal: abs
sāqla: ergative, other cases w/ prefixes.

---

More info to come. Any advice is welcomed!

[Parlox]

Most roots are triconsonantal, and nouns have two base forms:
Absolutive: CaCaC
Inflected: CāCCa

What does this "inflected' form do?

[CarsonDaConlanger]

What does this "inflected' form do?

I should have clarified. The inflected form takes other case prefixes. I just haven't figured out what those will be yet.
Let's say genitive is ū-, then to form that you would use the inflected stem form to make ūCāCCa I.E the same word used before would be ūsāqla.

[Parlox]

What does this "inflected' form do?

I should have clarified. The inflected form takes other case prefixes. I just haven't figured out what those will be yet.
Let's say genitive is ū-, then to form that you would use the inflected stem form to make ūCāCCa I.E the same word used before would be ūsāqla.

Is this of your own creation, or do you think this is how tri-consonantal root languages work?

In Semitic languages the vowel patterns have morphological or derivational meaning...

I'll go find an example of what I mean, and edit this post in a minute.

Edit: Ok so, here's an example. Bandah “Scrawl” > Banidahimal “They scrawled". This is the past 3pl indicative form, the vowel added between the consonants n-d indicates the third person, and the suffixes indicate the past tense and plural

This is just the information Bàsupan forms this way, other languages may use this method to form different information.

I probably explained this wrong.

[sangi39]

What does this "inflected' form do?

I should have clarified. The inflected form takes other case prefixes. I just haven't figured out what those will be yet.
Let's say genitive is ū-, then to form that you would use the inflected stem form to make ūCāCCa I.E the same word used before would be ūsāqla.

Is this of your own creation, or do you think this is how tri-consonantal root languages work?

In Semitic languages the vowel patterns have morphological or derivational meaning...

I'll go find an example of what I mean, and edit this post in a minute.

Edit: Ok so, here's an exampe. Bandah “Scrawl” > Banidahimal “They scrawled" l. This is the past 3pl indicative form, the vowel added between the consonants n-d indicates the thisrd person, and the suffixes indicate the past tense and plural

This is just the information Bàsupan forms this way, other languages may use this method to form different information./edit]

The absolute and inflectional stem here might be similar to the direct and oblique stems found in PIE, functionally I mean. In PIE, the direct or "strong" stem (most often with the stem in the e-grade) was used in the formation of the nominative and accusative cases in the singular and the dual, while the oblique or "weak" stem (often in the zero-grade) was used in the formation of the rest of a nouns declension. Other than the addition of suffixes, there's nothing inherently "meaningful" about the two different stems (IIRC, they're only "meaningful" in the sense that the genitive singular was marked for some nouns with the same suffix as the nominative singular, so the two were only distinguished by which grade the stem was in).

[CarsonDaConlanger]

Is this of your own creation, or do you think this is how tri-consonantal root languages work?

TBH, I know almost nothing about them lol. My school computer blocks the site you linked me to and my phone is currently out of commission, but once I get it back, I should have a better understanding. I have been mostly working it out as I go.

[Davush]

I think quite a lot of people assume tri-consonantal systems must function the same way as in Semitic languages, but I don't see why Carson's idea here can't work. I actually quite like the idea of having strong/weak stems with prefixes being applied to the weak stem.

I actually think using 'Semitic type triconsonantal systems' as a base for imitation in conlanging is limiting. I think someone has wrote about this more clearly/accurately (Salmoneus maybe?) but when you look closely at the diachronics and history behind tricon Semitic languages, it appears to be system of vowel syncope, stress reanalysis, the fixation of certain stems for certain functions, massive analogy and so on which led to Semitic languages being characterised by consonantal 'roots' which are seemingly quite flexible. There's no reason why any of these processes can't combine with other features or surface in quite different ways from Semitic languages. Also there's no reason why such a language couldn't be predominantly bi-consonantal, or equal parts bi- and tri-, or even more. It just so happens that the Semitic root evolved in such a way that three consonants became the dominant form.

As an aside, I notice quite a lot of tricon conlangs have Semitic-ish phonologies. I'd really like to see a Hawaiian style phonology with massive ablaut/syncope etc.

[Parlox]

I think quite a lot of people assume tri-consonantal systems must function the same way as in Semitic languages, but I don't see why Carson's idea here can't work. I actually quite like the idea of having strong/weak stems with prefixes being applied to the weak stem.

Ok, that makes sense.

As an aside, I notice quite a lot of tricon conlangs have Semitic-ish phonologies. I'd really like to see a Hawaiian style phonology with massive ablaut/syncope etc.

That would be cool. But I think an american-esque polysynthetic 3Cons language with modal particles would be amazing. I think I'll do something with this.

[sangi39]

The closest I've come so far is Proto-Skawlas. You can see how various nouns appear in their nominative singular and plural forms here where I've tried to group them all together, and then how a couple of verbs conjugate here and here.

In some later languages, there's a rule by which some instances of /l r m n/ followed by a schwa become syllabic consonants, which further break into /al ar an an/, /il ir in im/, etc. depending on the branch they belong to. So, for example, hrëkam ~ hrogmam (nose ~ noses) becomes harkam ~ hragmam in Proto-Western Skawlas, with ṭrëbi ~ ṭrȧbbi (seed ~ seeds) similarly becoming ṭarbi ~ ṭrabbi, and rëska ~ rosga (road ~ roads) becoming arska ~ rasga.

The rules leading up to are pretty regular, but on the surface level it's just easier to group them on the basis of how they become synchronically (no-one speaking the language is probably thinking "this morpheme carries stress, so the word as a whole will be stressed here, and I need to reduplicate this, syncopate that, shift the stress back a bit, deaspirate that consonant", and would instead think "right, this noun has the same structure as all these other nouns I know, so it'll probably end up looking similar in the plural too" and go from there, which is probably how Semitic-style triconsonantal roots came about, as Davush suggested)

[Salmoneus]

I actually think using 'Semitic type triconsonantal systems' as a base for imitation in conlanging is limiting. I think someone has wrote about this more clearly/accurately (Salmoneus maybe?)

Probably not, but it's possible. I think several of us have pointed out that it's unhelpful to have this idea of "triconlang" as a discrete category. Instead, what you have are processes of root alternation that can be more or less extreme, with Semitic languages as an example of relatively extreme root alternation.

As an aside, I notice quite a lot of tricon conlangs have Semitic-ish phonologies. I'd really like to see a Hawaiian style phonology with massive ablaut/syncope etc.

Well, it's not quite 'tricon', but with a few minutes playing around, I can offer a suggestion of what might happen if an austronesian-style language suddenly encountered Old Irish and Proto-Semitic simultaneously...

FIOSA - to write
/fʲosa/

He writes: fifheaga - /fʲiʔʲ´aga/
She writes: fiocén - /fʲoke:nʲ/
They write: meoiteaga - /mʲotʲaga/
You (sg.) write: aeteaga - /etʲaga/
You (pl.) write: mbaeteaga - /mbetʲaga/
He is writing: fiocú - /fʲoku:/
She is writing: fifhaccúin - /fʲi'ʲak'u:nʲ/ (yes, ejective...)
They are writing: biocú - /bʲoku:/
You (sg.) are writing: uiviocú - /ivʲoku:/
You (pl.) are writing: muippiocú - /mip'ʲoku:/
Writer: fiocaegi - /fʲokegʲi/
Female writer: fifheoicín - /fʲiʔʲokʲi:nʲ/
Writers: biocaegi - /bʲokegʲi/
Copyist: geviocaegi - /gʲevʲokegʲi/
Female copyist: geoiteoicín - /gʲotʲokʲi:nʲ/
Copyists: maighviocaegi - /mwi:vʲokegʲi/
Written material: fiocach - /fʲokax/
Your pencil: aetiosón - /etʲoso:n/

etc...