(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2020]

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2945
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Dormouse559 »

True, but I see no reason why another language couldn't use go + past participle. From an SAE perspective, I think it'd be especially possible for intransitive verbs. *Stores the idea away for romlang use*
somehomo
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 12
Joined: 19 Mar 2015 19:15

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by somehomo »

I'm kinda confused about where I should go with a few aspects of my current project. For a little background, it's a head-final exclusively suffixing nom-acc agglutinative language with front-back (not rounding) vowel harmony. It has a maximal CVC syllable structure but does not permit vowel sequences. I wanted the morphology to be sort of Turkic-esque, i.e. very regular, but I don't want it to be completely regular. So, I have a few questions. If you're interested in seeing more facets of the language, like the complete (as of yet) phonology and morphology, go here

1) I am just not pleased with my pronoun system. How should I change it? I wanted them especially to have irregularities.
Image

For comparison, here is the pronoun system if it were completely regular (i.e. nominative pronoun stems with no alteration):
Image

Also, my conlang has temporal and durative cases (when an action is and how long/during what an action is respectively). I decided these pronominal forms would not be used because I have no idea what they could mean. Does anyone have an idea or is it naturalistic for them to just not exist (in speech at least)?

2) Currently I have it so verbal infinitives end in -hE, the vowel differing depending on harmony. Currently I am in kind of a weird situation because I want there to be verb roots that end in vowels, and in that case, I would want the verbal infinitive for vowel stems to be something different, because stems that end in consonant clusters or geminate consonants ending in -EhE due to anaptyxis and thus these forms would be indistinguishable as a vowel-stem or CVCC-stem. I was thinking of making vowel stems end in -hi. What are your thoughts?
felipesnark
sinic
sinic
Posts: 413
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by felipesnark »

somehomo wrote:I'm kinda confused about where I should go with a few aspects of my current project. For a little background, it's a head-final exclusively suffixing nom-acc agglutinative language with front-back (not rounding) vowel harmony. It has a maximal CVC syllable structure but does not permit vowel sequences. I wanted the morphology to be sort of Turkic-esque, i.e. very regular, but I don't want it to be completely regular. So, I have a few questions. If you're interested in seeing more facets of the language, like the complete (as of yet) phonology and morphology, go here

1) I am just not pleased with my pronoun system. How should I change it? I wanted them especially to have irregularities.
Image

For comparison, here is the pronoun system if it were completely regular (i.e. nominative pronoun stems with no alteration):
Image

Also, my conlang has temporal and durative cases (when an action is and how long/during what an action is respectively). I decided these pronominal forms would not be used because I have no idea what they could mean. Does anyone have an idea or is it naturalistic for them to just not exist (in speech at least)?
Your language looks neat! What about your pronoun system are you not pleased with? That it's too regular? Maybe you could make the plural pronouns less clearly related to the singular ones? Different stems? I also think it's fine that not all cases apply in all situations. For example, for some languages that have instrumental cases, it may be not particularly common for animate nouns to appear in that case. Also, English, and many Romance languages, retain case distinctions in pronouns that their general nouns lack.
somehomo wrote: 2) Currently I have it so verbal infinitives end in -hE, the vowel differing depending on harmony. Currently I am in kind of a weird situation because I want there to be verb roots that end in vowels, and in that case, I would want the verbal infinitive for vowel stems to be something different, because stems that end in consonant clusters or geminate consonants ending in -EhE due to anaptyxis and thus these forms would be indistinguishable as a vowel-stem or CVCC-stem. I was thinking of making vowel stems end in -hi. What are your thoughts?
I think it's okay that there is ambiguity, which often happens in language. You could simply mark in your lexicon what type of stem the verb has if that is important for inflection or derivation. I think it is also fine to treat vowel stems differently.
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs: http://grwilliams.net/ It's a work in progress!
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 668
Joined: 19 Feb 2016 03:47

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Isfendil »

Would it be possible to make a PIE lang that diverged before the merging of the velars? Obviously some of them would merge later due to diachronics but is it historically possible?
Could it even have happened but no such leaving of said language exists?
Or is it that the kentum and satəm represent two contemporaneous dialects (I know this question is difficult to answer, I apologize).
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by qwed117 »

Isfendil wrote:Would it be possible to make a PIE lang that diverged before the merging of the velars? Obviously some of them would merge later due to diachronics but is it historically possible?
Could it even have happened but no such leaving of said language exists?
Or is it that the kentum and satəm represent two contemporaneous dialects (I know this question is difficult to answer, I apologize).
Yes, Albanian is one such language, where the velar series have only incompletely merged, with all three having different reflexes.
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 »

Isfendil wrote:Would it be possible to make a PIE lang that diverged before the merging of the velars? Obviously some of them would merge later due to diachronics but is it historically possible?
Could it even have happened but no such leaving of said language exists?
Or is it that the kentum and satəm represent two contemporaneous dialects (I know this question is difficult to answer, I apologize).
IIRC, Albanian shows signs of all three velar series surviving into the modern language to some degree or another so I wouldn't say it's an implausible idea at all [:)]

EDIT: Ninja'd by Qwed [:P]
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 641
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien »

^Luwian is the only other IE language that also seems to have reflexes of all three, as far as I know.
Image
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3033
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Isfendil wrote:Would it be possible to make a PIE lang that diverged before the merging of the velars? Obviously some of them would merge later due to diachronics but is it historically possible?
Could it even have happened but no such leaving of said language exists?
Or is it that the kentum and satəm represent two contemporaneous dialects (I know this question is difficult to answer, I apologize).
The fact that the 'velars' were merged in at least two different ways in the daughter languages proves that PIE did not have the series merged. Indeed, the phrasing of the question, talking of "merging" (rather than "splitting"), contains the answer to it: the PIE series were later merged, so PIE had unmerged series. Therefore a 'PIE lang' (i.e. an IE lang descended from PIE) by definition is free not to merge the series. Indeed, "diverged before the merging of the velars" makes no sense - by the time of the 'merging', there was no PIE to diverge from. The merging happened in the daughter languages, not in PIE.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by qwed117 »

Salmoneus wrote:
Isfendil wrote:Would it be possible to make a PIE lang that diverged before the merging of the velars? Obviously some of them would merge later due to diachronics but is it historically possible?
Could it even have happened but no such leaving of said language exists?
Or is it that the kentum and satəm represent two contemporaneous dialects (I know this question is difficult to answer, I apologize).
The fact that the 'velars' were merged in at least two different ways in the daughter languages proves that PIE did not have the series merged. Indeed, the phrasing of the question, talking of "merging" (rather than "splitting"), contains the answer to it: the PIE series were later merged, so PIE had unmerged series. Therefore a 'PIE lang' (i.e. an IE lang descended from PIE) by definition is free not to merge the series. Indeed, "diverged before the merging of the velars" makes no sense - by the time of the 'merging', there was no PIE to diverge from. The merging happened in the daughter languages, not in PIE.
In addition, some evidence suggests the entire isogloss centum-satem isogloss happened well after PIE split into groups. The evidence I'm referring to is the Greco-Armenian hypothesis and the Germano-Albanian group hypothesis. The satem isoglosses is also heavily linked to the RUKI laws.
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
Ashtăr Balynestjăr
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 195
Joined: 18 Jan 2017 07:17

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ashtăr Balynestjăr »

Albanian shows different reflexes for all three velar series. To a first approximation, the front velars developed into dental fricatives, the back velars remained velar, and the labiovelars merged with the back velars before back vowels, but became sibilants before front vowels.
[ˈaʃt̪əɹ ˈbalɨˌnɛsʲtʲəɹ]
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 668
Joined: 19 Feb 2016 03:47

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Isfendil »

Thank you for the overwhleming responses! Especially for that comment about isoglosses, that was especially helpful and encouraging to know that the kentum and satem languages are much more closely related than I could ever think.
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Frislander »

Isfendil wrote:Thank you for the overwhleming responses! Especially for that comment about isoglosses, that was especially helpful and encouraging to know that the kentum and satem languages are much more closely related than I could ever think.
Yeah, the idea of then forming two separate dialect groups of Indo-European is beginning to fall apart right now, with some suggesting that the satem languages actually represent an innovation spread by contact while the centum languages are the more conservative, and that PIE should only be reconstructed with plain and labialised velars.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3033
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Frislander wrote:
Isfendil wrote:Thank you for the overwhleming responses! Especially for that comment about isoglosses, that was especially helpful and encouraging to know that the kentum and satem languages are much more closely related than I could ever think.
Yeah, the idea of then forming two separate dialect groups of Indo-European is beginning to fall apart right now, with some suggesting that the satem languages actually represent an innovation spread by contact while the centum languages are the more conservative, and that PIE should only be reconstructed with plain and labialised velars.
...I follow you up to the last clause, but if centum is the conservative situation surely there have to be three series? Because otherwise, all the centum languages would have to have turned some sort of affricate/fricative/palatalthing into a velar, which isn't very conservative. Unless you're suggesting that the satem languages somehow just came up with the idea of splitting their velars into two series, the exact same way that the Luwians had already done? What other changes do you have to make to the phonology to trigger what otherwise seems like an unconditioned split? And does that mean you have to include Anatolian back into late PIE, or is Luwian a coincidence?
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Frislander »

Salmoneus wrote:
Frislander wrote:
Isfendil wrote:Thank you for the overwhleming responses! Especially for that comment about isoglosses, that was especially helpful and encouraging to know that the kentum and satem languages are much more closely related than I could ever think.
Yeah, the idea of then forming two separate dialect groups of Indo-European is beginning to fall apart right now, with some suggesting that the satem languages actually represent an innovation spread by contact while the centum languages are the more conservative, and that PIE should only be reconstructed with plain and labialised velars.
...I follow you up to the last clause, but if centum is the conservative situation surely there have to be three series? Because otherwise, all the centum languages would have to have turned some sort of affricate/fricative/palatalthing into a velar, which isn't very conservative. Unless you're suggesting that the satem languages somehow just came up with the idea of splitting their velars into two series, the exact same way that the Luwians had already done? What other changes do you have to make to the phonology to trigger what otherwise seems like an unconditioned split? And does that mean you have to include Anatolian back into late PIE, or is Luwian a coincidence?
Well the idea is that the palatalised series was derived from the plain velar in most environments (for more see The Wikipedia page), so that the centum languages don't have to do the de-palatalisation thing, which is implied in the traditional three-series reconstruction, but not necessary in the two-series version. It's the reconstruction favoured by Dnghu.
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 668
Joined: 19 Feb 2016 03:47

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Isfendil »

I have been led to believe that this idea of only two velars is suspect, having asked it myself a while ago.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3033
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Frislander wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:
Frislander wrote:
Isfendil wrote:Thank you for the overwhleming responses! Especially for that comment about isoglosses, that was especially helpful and encouraging to know that the kentum and satem languages are much more closely related than I could ever think.
Yeah, the idea of then forming two separate dialect groups of Indo-European is beginning to fall apart right now, with some suggesting that the satem languages actually represent an innovation spread by contact while the centum languages are the more conservative, and that PIE should only be reconstructed with plain and labialised velars.
...I follow you up to the last clause, but if centum is the conservative situation surely there have to be three series? Because otherwise, all the centum languages would have to have turned some sort of affricate/fricative/palatalthing into a velar, which isn't very conservative. Unless you're suggesting that the satem languages somehow just came up with the idea of splitting their velars into two series, the exact same way that the Luwians had already done? What other changes do you have to make to the phonology to trigger what otherwise seems like an unconditioned split? And does that mean you have to include Anatolian back into late PIE, or is Luwian a coincidence?
Well the idea is that the palatalised series was derived from the plain velar in most environments (for more see The Wikipedia page), so that the centum languages don't have to do the de-palatalisation thing, which is implied in the traditional three-series reconstruction, but not necessary in the two-series version. It's the reconstruction favoured by Dnghu.
I wouldn't go around citing Dnghu as an authority...

I can't see any actual evidence there for the two-series model. Let me get this straight... so, the velar series split in two along originally allophonic lines (with palatalisation before *ue!), and then a wizard came and changed some of the new palatovelars to velars in ways we can't understand and that seem to have left no trace? And we have to accept that because... it's implausible that multiple different related languages with continuing contact between them might independently have merged uvulars and velars? This doesn't seem the most parsimonious theory!

Sure, if there were velars and uvulars, it's possible that some or all of the uvulars may have come from velars at some point in the past. But to assume that all of them did so, and that they did so post-PIE, independently in every branch, due to some unknown factors that have, again, independently been lost in every branch, just seems to be unnecessarily tendentious, to me...
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 668
Joined: 19 Feb 2016 03:47

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Isfendil »

Alright, diachronics for an a posteriori I am making have allowed me to combine the genitive case with an inessive particle to form a new case. I do not need an ablative and I already used the particle to form a dative when on its own- what else can I form?
User avatar
Frislander
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Frislander »

Salmoneus wrote:[quote="Frislander"][quote="Salmoneus"] ... pedia page), so that the centum languages don't have to do the de-palatalisation thing, which is implied in the traditional three-series reconstruction, but not necessary in the two-series version. It's the reconstruction favoured by Dnghu.
[/url]

I wouldn't go around citing Dnghu as an authority...

I can't see any actual evidence there for the two-series model. Let me get this straight... so, the velar series split in two along originally allophonic lines (with palatalisation before *ue!), and then a wizard came and changed some of the new palatovelars to velars in ways we can't understand and that seem to have left no trace? And we have to accept that because... it's implausible that multiple different related languages with continuing contact between them might independently have merged uvulars and velars? This doesn't seem the most parsimonious theory!

Sure, if there were velars and uvulars, it's possible that some or all of the uvulars may have come from velars at some point in the past. But to assume that all of them did so, and that they did so post-PIE, independently in every branch, due to some unknown factors that have, again, independently been lost in every branch, just seems to be unnecessarily tendentious, to me...[/quote]

Ahh, so you subscribe to the "plain velars were actually uvulars" school? Well I did say "traditional" three series (plain, palatal and labial), which doesn't cover the new alternative interpretations given by modern scholars: I was just comparing the traditional three-series and two-series views. If I had time I'd probably do more research.

Mind you, if there was a uvular series I'm still wondering why no daughter language preserves them as such... Anyhow, this is probably neither the time nor the thread for this discussion: we'll leave it for when I've done three years of linguistics and have it on the the ZBB PIE thread.
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor »

A genitive that is only used for alienable possession.
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]
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3033
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Well, I think there were two non-labialised dorsal series, sure, and the simplest idea would be that was was further back than the other. Whether you call them 'front velar' and 'back velar', 'palatalised' and 'plain', 'velar' and 'uvular', doesn't really seem to matter. Except that probably the front series was more common than the back series, and generally ended up as a velar so it probably wasn't too far front. Beyond that, it's all just guesswork and arguing over definitions, I think.

Though an alternative solution would be that the 'back' velar instead had some sort of secondary articulation or phonation, like pharyngealisation or creaky voice or something. That might tie into RUKI - leaving the vowels aside, we know that those two otherwise unrelated consonants, K and R, had a particular effect, and apparently K (rather than a front velar) is much more likely to be found next to R (ie perhaps whateveritis spread from R to adjacent front velars to give 'back' velars. Rhotics are things that can easily have something like pharyngealisation, and iirc some have hypothesised some articulation or phonation behind RUKI, with ATR or something on the high vowels for some phonetic reason I can't remember. Alternatively, of course, R may just have been uvular, which again would allow spreading onto *k, and would avoid the question of 'so why isn't there pharyngealisation (etc) on other stops?'.


[it's not surprising we don't see uvular (or pharyngealised, etc) reflexes, though. These are all rare sounds that are easily lost, the early IE languages probably continued in a sprachbund for a long time, and all the surviving descendent languages have largely been in contact with other IE languages their entire lives, so natural tendencies combined with areal affects could easily deal with all that, I think (and earlier languages, which would have been more likely to show anything odd, were either not recorded, or were recorded in inadequate early scripts, or just recorded in scripts that don't allow such fine details to be recovered).]
Locked