(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2020]
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
For comparison & contrastion, here are the same concepts in ASL:
Eat/Food
http://asluniversity.com/asl101/images-signs/eat-01.jpg
Speak/Talk
http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/signjpegs/t/talk4.jpg
Eat/Food
http://asluniversity.com/asl101/images-signs/eat-01.jpg
Speak/Talk
http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/signjpegs/t/talk4.jpg
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
In one of my , Yauchuan, there is a verbalizer that is prefixed to nouns to make verbs like what you describe.Salmoneus wrote: ↑15 Jan 2018 15:22Who's to say that "speak" doesn't mean "to eat"? It's just a fact about the language. If your language has mouth-do mean 'speak', then it does, and speakers will know it doesn't mean 'eat' because... that's not the word for 'eat'.Evynova wrote: ↑15 Jan 2018 10:05 Hey all. I come to you with a conundrum regarding a new project I want to start working on.
I want to begin working on a personal conlang, for my own personal use and not as a part of my conworld. This relieves me of the constraints of naturalism to an extent, but I still want to do things right. I have decided to go for a Polynesian feel with a small phonemic inventory and a mostly isolating grammar with tons of particles. So far so good.
Another feature I've been thinking of, and the one that's causing me some problems, is to have verbs be a closed class. My idea is to only have a few verbs that only vaguely describe a concept; incorporating nouns is the solution for more precise meaning. Using a verb describing states, I would also get rid of adjectives. But here's the issue: how do I create verbs, using incorporation, that would not be awfully ambiguous? Using a single verb describing actions and incorporating mouth into it, as mouth-do could describe speaking. But who's to say it cannot translate as "to eat"? Or even "to kiss"? Admittedly, since this is a personal lang, it shouldn't really be a problem to me but I don't like so much ambiguity.
In fact,
zakuabai
za.kuabai
<VBLZ>mouth
"to bite"; "to eat"
besides unrelated roots
darupa "to eat"
wato "to speak"
You could get a little more specific:
teeth<VBLZ> = "to chew", "to bite", "to eat"
tongue<VBLZ> = "to speak"
And sometimes natlangs are helpful, sometimes not.
Proto-Semitic *lišān-
PIE *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s
both "tongue" & "language"
osculum "kiss" from os "mouth" (Dim. os+culum)
But like Sal suggests, it's kind of up to you.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
And in all the three gestural systems, the concept of 'talking' or 'speaking' has the interlocutor make some kind of hand-motion away from the mouth. In Native American Hand Talk, the gesture for 'speaking' carries this motion.
Sort of like the sound-waves/exhalations emanating from the mouth in the Chinese radical
言
Sort of like the sound-waves/exhalations emanating from the mouth in the Chinese radical
言
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I'm looking for a way to represent /ʎ]/.
At first I used <lj> but I want <j> to be /ɟ/. <ly> would be confusing for me at the end of words or in clusters, because it looks like it has a vowel. I could go with <ll>, but are there other ideas?
At first I used <lj> but I want <j> to be /ɟ/. <ly> would be confusing for me at the end of words or in clusters, because it looks like it has a vowel. I could go with <ll>, but are there other ideas?
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
What's the rest of the phoneme inventory and orthography look like?
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.
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.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I have some more places where I'm not sure about the orthography, but these are the options:
/m n ɲ/ <m n ń>
/p t c k/ <p t c k>
/b d ɟ g/ <b d j g>
/mb nd ɲɟ ŋg/ <mb nd ńj ng>
/s ʃ x h/ <s ś x h> OR <s sh kh h>
/v~β z ʒ/ <v z ź> OR <v z zh>
/l ʎ/ <l ?>
/r/ <r>
[j] occurs but is not really phonemic so right now I'm not using <y> for anything
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Maybe <lh> or <ľ>?
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I'd agree with that, although I'd suggest <ĺ> rather than <ľ> unless you're against diacritics over ascenders.
<lh> would fit in with <sh> and <zh>, although that option does then leave <ń> feeling a little out of place (<nh> would be more consistent there, and <nj> for /ɲɟ/ might only be an problem if it contrasted /nɟ/).
<ĺ> would fit with <ń>, and since /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ aren't "truly" palatal, then having them as <sh> and <zh> instead of <ś> and <ź> wouldn't necessarily be all that unreasonable.
You could go with several options if you're dealing with a pre-standardised orthography
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.
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.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I use ļ for that sound in one of my languages. The Romanization I use has only four letters with diacritics: ç ļ ĝ š, so it kind of matches up.
I think I agree with this statement most.<lh> would fit in with <sh> and <zh>, although that option does then leave <ń> feeling a little out of place (<nh> would be more consistent there, and <nj> for /ɲɟ/ might only be an problem if it contrasted /nɟ/).
Sometimes this can be fun. I use ny in one language for /ɲ/, e.g. Zemany /zemaɲ/.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
You could reverse it to yn at the end of the wortd, or even just y if it doesn't conflict.
Kavunupupis, šiŋuputata.
When I see you pointing at me, I know I'm in trouble. (Play)
When I see you pointing at me, I know I'm in trouble. (Play)
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I think Old French use to do something similar, with <il> for /ʎ/ (I think some dialects of Basque do something similar), and of course Irish and Scottish Gaelic use <il> and <in> for /ʎ/ and /ɲ/ because of their orthographic rules regarding "broad" and "slender" consonants
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.
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.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I want to know if this is plausible/naturalistic:
There are two copular verbs -іуп- and -буту- and their negative counterparts -агні- and -цал-.
The verbs -іуп-/-агні- are used when the predicate is a noun and functions like a transitive verb.
The verbs -буту-/-цал- are used when the complement is an adjective and functions like an intransitive verb. Additionally, adjective affixes are affixed to the verb.
лу-іуп-ач лу-н-ѕер-е-нш-е
3.ERG-be-3.ABS 3.ERG-NFUT-save-2.ABS-NMLZ-AN.ABS
"She will be your saviour."
н-инк-буту-ч чос-о
NFUT-white-be-3.ABS snow-INAN.ABS
"The snow is white."
л-агніа-ч ліок-е
3.ERG-not_be-3.ABS fish-AN.ABS
"They will not be a fish."
на-мин-цал-ч іӣп-еі
NFUT-hot-not_be-3.ABS man-HUM.ABS
"Man's not hot."
There are two copular verbs -іуп- and -буту- and their negative counterparts -агні- and -цал-.
The verbs -іуп-/-агні- are used when the predicate is a noun and functions like a transitive verb.
The verbs -буту-/-цал- are used when the complement is an adjective and functions like an intransitive verb. Additionally, adjective affixes are affixed to the verb.
лу-іуп-ач лу-н-ѕер-е-нш-е
3.ERG-be-3.ABS 3.ERG-NFUT-save-2.ABS-NMLZ-AN.ABS
"She will be your saviour."
н-инк-буту-ч чос-о
NFUT-white-be-3.ABS snow-INAN.ABS
"The snow is white."
л-агніа-ч ліок-е
3.ERG-not_be-3.ABS fish-AN.ABS
"They will not be a fish."
на-мин-цал-ч іӣп-еі
NFUT-hot-not_be-3.ABS man-HUM.ABS
"Man's not hot."
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
It's far from standardised. I did use <nj> for /ɲ/ and <dj> for /ɟ/ but that left me without a good way to write /ɲɟ/ - <ndj> is too long and ugly for what the language considers one sound. <nh> and <lh> will probably have the same issues. I also have some clusters that would make the whole thing messy.sangi39 wrote: ↑18 Jan 2018 00:09 <lh> would fit in with <sh> and <zh>, although that option does then leave <ń> feeling a little out of place (<nh> would be more consistent there, and <nj> for /ɲɟ/ might only be an problem if it contrasted /nɟ/).
<ĺ> would fit with <ń>, and since /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ aren't "truly" palatal, then having them as <sh> and <zh> instead of <ś> and <ź> wouldn't necessarily be all that unreasonable.
You could go with several options if you're dealing with a pre-standardised orthography
<ĺ> is a good idea.
I like this one. Digraphs with <y> will be less confusing.
Thanks everyone :)
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
So, is this naturalistic/plausible?Ahzoh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2018 20:59 I want to know if this is plausible/naturalistic:
There are two copular verbs -іуп- and -буту- and their negative counterparts -агні- and -цал-.
The verbs -іуп-/-агні- are used when the predicate is a noun and functions like a transitive verb.
The verbs -буту-/-цал- are used when the complement is an adjective and functions like an intransitive verb. Additionally, adjective affixes are affixed to the verb.
лу-іуп-ач лу-н-ѕер-е-нш-е
3.ERG-be-3.ABS 3.ERG-NFUT-save-2.ABS-NMLZ-AN.ABS
"She will be your saviour."
н-инк-буту-ч чос-о
NFUT-white-be-3.ABS snow-INAN.ABS
"The snow is white."
л-агніа-ч ліок-е
3.ERG-not_be-3.ABS fish-AN.ABS
"They will not be a fish."
на-мин-цал-ч іӣп-еі
NFUT-hot-not_be-3.ABS man-HUM.ABS
"Man's not hot."
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Well, in another natlang that I speak, there is a set of 2 equalizers and 2 negators, of which 1 pair of them is used for nouns, and the other pair is for adjectives, as you describe it here.Ahzoh wrote: ↑21 Jan 2018 08:48So, is this naturalistic/plausible?Ahzoh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2018 20:59 I want to know if this is plausible/naturalistic:
There are two copular verbs -іуп- and -буту- and their negative counterparts -агні- and -цал-.
The verbs -іуп-/-агні- are used when the predicate is a noun and functions like a transitive verb.
The verbs -буту-/-цал- are used when the complement is an adjective and functions like an intransitive verb. Additionally, adjective affixes are affixed to the verb.
However, they don't work the same way as shown in your provided sample sentences. Also, their function with regard to transitivity is probably not the same, as they have properties from a trigger language.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
The language you speak is a trigger language or are you guessing my conlang is? If the latter, then my conlang is not a trigger language. It is just that adjectives are more life affixes and attach to what they modify.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
When I said trigger language, I was indeed referring to the properties of verbs from the natlang. I know that your conlang wasn't a trigger language from your examples, so I provided an additional comparison, just in case you wanted the same type of transitivity.
EDIT: Note: To reclarify, I do not claim to speak a trigger natlang, but merely a natlang that has trigger-like properties, because apparently linguists and wikipedia can't decide if it should be classified as a trigger language or a nom-acc language.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
What language is it you're talking about?