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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 337
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 »

The question about syntax was due to lack of research as the exact syntax (SVO, etc.) didn't matter much at all. Thus, no matter what I meant, the answer was "yes."

I'd never thought about the un-trilled /r/ resulting from resonance or vibration.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)
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 »

shimobaatar wrote: 23 Sep 2018 16:34
yangfiretiger121 wrote: 23 Sep 2018 16:21 Judging by Wiktionary, the vowels in göttlich and Öl have an un-trilled /r/ tagged onto the end in Standard German. Having fronted [o→ø], does Dyoan need the trilled /r/ in words similar to ᴀʟꜱɪɴᴅᴏᴇʀ?
Although I don't hear anything rhotic in "göttlich", the audio Wiktionary gives for "Öl" sounds very strange to me. Could a native German speaker perhaps weigh in on this? Is that really how "Öl" is pronounced?
I hear <Öl> in the example as [ʔø̰əl], with slightly creaky voice (low pitch) maybe due to coarticulation with the glottal stop. There is also a schwa-offglide after the vowel, this might be coarticulation with the lateral which I hear as slightly backed.
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
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4191
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

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

Post by Ahzoh »

I need suggestions for some possible meanings for my circumpositions based on the possible original meanings of their constituents.
I have thus (where ha means "in, inside, into" and ku means "out, outside, out of"):

seẇt ... ha =
seẇt ... bar =
seẇt ... ku =

ʾina ... ha = [done] by, as in ʾedasram ʾina lama ṉayik ha. "It will be done by our hands."
ʾina ... bar =
ʾina ... ku =

ʾoṉ ... ha = between, among
ʾoṉ ... bar =
ʾoṉ ... ku =

šu ... ha = near
šu ... bar =
šu ... ku = far
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
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 »

I have:

seẇt ... ha =
seẇt ... bar =
seẇt ... ku =

ʾina ... ha = [done] by, as in ʾedasram ʾina lama ṉayik ha. "It will be done by our hands."
ʾina ... bar =
ʾina ... ku = (done) without (something)

ʾoṉ ... ha = between, among
ʾoṉ ... bar =
ʾoṉ ... ku = around, surrounding

šu ... ha = near
šu ... bar =
šu ... ku = far

So far, but I'm not sure what seẇt or bar mean.
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
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4191
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

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

Post by Ahzoh »

seẇt or bar mean.
I don't know either. Although I think they would mean "about [topic]" and "along", respectively.

I have come up with a set of adpositions with no words assigned to them:
inside
outside
at the front of
at the back of
at the side of
at the top of, on the top of
at the bottom of, under the bottom of
above
below
between
near
far

Direction:
towards
away
along
around

Misc:
for (dative, benefactive)
with (comitative)

But I'm not sure which could be a lexicalised combination of which.

Edit: actually perhaps ong bar is “along”, sewt ha is “in front of”, sewt bar is “beside”, and sewt ku is “behind”
we can infer some kind of meaning of the preposition components.
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 238
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger »

Is there an alignment like Split Ergative but it's Split Nominative? Where some intransitive verbs take an accusative subject?
He/they bisexual weeb
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 »

CarsonDaConlanger wrote: 25 Sep 2018 20:50 Is there an alignment like Split Ergative but it's Split Nominative? Where some intransitive verbs take an accusative subject?
As far as I understand it, that would be the same thing.

If we label the intransitive subject, transitive agent, and transitive patient simply as SUB, AGT, and PAT, we'll see why:

At the basic level, let's assume there are two different constructions, 1) SUB VERB, and 2) AGT VERB PAT. In a strictly nom-acc language, SUB and AGT are universally identical. Similarly, in a strictly erg-abs language, SUB and PAT are universally identical. The names of the cases "nominative", "accusative", "absolutive" and "ergative" are, as I understand it, defined by this SUB=AGT vs. SUB=PAT distinction (the former being the nominative and the latter being the absolutive).

In split-ergative languages, SUB can either be identical to AGT or it can be identical to PAT. The term "split-ergative" is thus simply a naming convention because if SUB=PAT in some instances, then it wouldn't matter if that case was called the accusative or the absolutive, because the result would be the same.

To sum it up, "I-NOM kicked the dog-ACC" would be identical to "I-ERG kicked the dog-ABS", what distinguished the two systems is the use of those case markers in intransitive constructions, e.g. "I-NOM fell" vs. "I-ABS fell". Strictly speaking, you could label the ergative as the nominative and the absolutive as the accusative and you'd get "I-ACC fell".
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
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4331
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes »

CarsonDaConlanger wrote: 25 Sep 2018 20:50 Is there an alignment like Split Ergative but it's Split Nominative? Where some intransitive verbs take an accusative subject?
What Sangi said, but I want to add something:

There is a tendency (but only a tendency) for the Nominative to be the unmarked case in a Nom-Acc language, and for the Absolutive to be the unmarked case in an Erg-Abs language.

Therefore, you can have your split-alignment language look more like a Nom-Acc language by having the more Agent-like argument unmarked.

This largely only applies if your language is dependent-marking for role. If it’s head-marking and you’d like to follow this up, there are also ways of doing this, but I’ll only go into that if needed.
Edit: Edited this, as my original wording was faulty.
User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 238
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger »

Thanks guys! That helps.
He/they bisexual weeb
Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 940
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine »

Does extensive language contact between two different languages ALWAYS necessitate "simplification" of those language's grammar? (Case loss, for example.)

Are there any examples of two languages in contact becoming more complex?
My Blog

A-posteriori, alternative history nerd
Porphyrogenitos
sinic
sinic
Posts: 401
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 08:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

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

Post by Porphyrogenitos »

It could still be viewed as simplification, but straightforward loss of inflection isn't the only outcome. There have been many cases of fusional/synthetic languages undergoing changes to become (partly or largely) agglutinative under the influence of neighboring agglutinative languages - e.g. Cappadocian Greek, Ossetian, Armenian, Marathi.

Unfortunately though, I don't think it's ever a probable or even possible outcome for language contact to result in an increase in complex fusional/synthetic inflectional morphology. There can be new inflectional developments due to contact, but not a major change in inflectional profile. E.g. contact between Polynesian and Nahuatl is never going to result in Polynesian becoming polysynthetic, at best each language will maintain what it has with maybe a few mutual grammatical influences, but even more likely it will just make both languages lose their inflection. (Unless a mixed language happens, but that's a separate development from either.) Or, contact between Iroquoian and Salishan isn't going to result in an explosion of extreme polysynthesis - if anything it will result in both systems being simplified.

For a real-life example, close contact between Old English and Old Norse, both very closely related synthetic languages, didn't result in the OE inflectional system being strengthened - instead, it was likely a major factor in the disappearance of much of English's inflectional morphology.

It is an observed pattern that very rich inflectional morphology tends to develop in languages with small or isolated populations, and language contact - especially acquisition by new populations - tends to result in morphological simplification.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore »

Ælfwine wrote: 27 Sep 2018 01:27 Does extensive language contact between two different languages ALWAYS necessitate "simplification" of those language's grammar? (Case loss, for example.)

Are there any examples of two languages in contact becoming more complex?
English consists of numerous examples of language contact resulting in complexification of the lexicon of at least one of them (namely English). Usually the other language also expanded its lexicon due to the contact.

Maybe the phonology and/or morphology and/or syntax is usually modified. But languages consist also of vocabulary.

Normally a borrowed word doesn’t have its entire paradigm borrowed; and normally its phonological shape is modified, Procrustean-wise, to fit the native phonotactics of its new language. So, normally, the borrowed word gets simplified in those senses.

But the sheer number of words that get borrowed usually makes the languages’ lexicons more complex. IMO, at least.

When a new contact language develops, first as a pidgin and then as a creole, I think its morphology is almost always simpler than the morphology of one of its parent languages, and also its syntax is simpler than the syntax of one of its parent languages. But it might be either morphologically or syntactically more complex than its other parent.
Some English-based creoles, e.g., have dual and even trial grammatical number, and have clusivity in first-person non-singular.
And doesn’t some Canadian creole of French and some Native American language (Michif, maybe?) have some grammatical features French lacks? For some reason the word “jargon” comes to mind.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3033
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

Ælfwine wrote: 27 Sep 2018 01:27 Are there any examples of two languages in contact becoming more complex?
Absolutely! Mixed languages can adopt complexities from both their parents.

The key distinction is that creoles arise where the bilingual speakers have a low level of ability in one or both languages. They cut out the complicated bits to make sure everyone understands (and so that they themselves understand). Mixed languages arise where the bilingual speakers have a high level of ability in both languages - they can incorporate complexities from both languages as a sort of language game. The problem is, it's likely to remain as a language game among bilingual speakers, rather than developing into an independent language with fixed rules (whereas creoles have to, because their speakers don't have full access to the dominant language). So these languages are very rare.

The most famous is Michif, which largely takes its verbs (complete with polysynthesis) from Cree, and its nouns (complete with gender agreement) from French.
Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 940
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine »

Thanks guys!

The reason I ask is the language I am playing with is a North Germanic language spoken on the Isle of Man (or more specifically, the Calf of Man located off the coast of the Isle of Man). I have a strong reason to suspect that a mixed language of sort might arise on the Isle of Man where the Norse intermingled with the Gaelic inhabitants of the island. In the book "The Nordic Languages" on page 1056 has a passage about the Isle of Man specifically:
Although argued by some that Gaelic became extinct on Man as a consequence of the Norse settlement (to be reintroduced later), most now accept that it survived, resulting in a long period of Gaelic-Norse contact. Some have seen the Scandinavian runic inscriptions as evidence of such contact. Not only do many of those mentioned in them bear names of Gaelic origin, there is here and there evidence of a breakdown in the Old Norse inflexional system (manifested as unexpected case endings or a lack of them altogether), by some attributed to uncertainty following prolonged language contact. Beyond these suggestions of intermixture, the totality of the linguistic evidence from Man does little more than confirm a strong West Norse presence. The date at which Scandinavian finally ceased to be spoken on the island is currently estimated at soon after 1300, but there are indications it may have died out a century or so earlier.
I've used this paragraph as justification to add many Gaelic features to my conlang. I've even toyed with initial mutations, but I am indecisive about whether I want to include them, mostly because they would likely add an additional layer of complexity to the language, while a breakdown of the inflectional system would suggest a trend towards simplification. But a true mixed language between Proto-Manx and Old Norse wouldn't be too hard to imagine either, especially if both groups become fluent in each other's languages. Thoughts?
My Blog

A-posteriori, alternative history nerd
Porphyrogenitos
sinic
sinic
Posts: 401
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 08:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

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

Post by Porphyrogenitos »

Norse developing consonant mutations is perfectly plausible (with the appropriate sound changes), and I imagine they might pick up some of the grammatical work that was handled by the inflections which are/were apparently getting worn off due to contact with Gaelic. And really, the consonant mutations wouldn't even have to be attributed to contact with Gaelic specifically - initial consonant mutations are pretty darn common throughout Western Europe, and I'd say they're almost the default in Romance, though the only standard Romances with consonant mutation are Italian and (sort of) French. (Lots of colloquial Spanish has consonant mutation to various degrees as well.)

A mixed language wouldn't be implausible either.
yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 337
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 »

Ddoean's [ˈd̪͡ðø̞.ɑ̃] preferred syntax is Latin's noun-adjective variant. For example, The Empress' Military translates into Ddoean as Naxaesh Aouraae [nɑˈxeç ɑ.uˈrɑ.e]. Thus, I'm checking on the exact structure of a few of The Empress' Military's branch names before finalizing them. Considering Star Navy and Star Marine Corps are both nouns, are their translations formatted as all nouns (e.g. Oeddou Vlaea) or as a noun followed by adjectives describing it (e.g. Vlaea Oeddouji)?
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on 29 Sep 2018 04:02, edited 2 times in total.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)
holbuzvala
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala »

@yangi

A few qs to clarify some points:
1. By "Latin's noun-adj variant", do you mean that adjectives (on the whole) follow nouns in Ddoean?
2. Can you provide a gloss for Naxaesh Auoraae, and Oeddou Vlaea and Vlaea Oeddouji please?

The caveats to my reply are:
1. I don't know lots about Latin
2. I assume Ddoean is your own conlang.
3. I assume 'Star' here means having to do with outer space, a opposed to just really good soldiers.
4. I assume I know what your question is asking.

So, jumping right in: Based on what I know, Latin would have translated 'Star Navy' along the lines of 'Navy of the Stars' using a genetive construction:

Star Navy
classis stellarum
fleet.NOM.S star.GEN.PL

But, as a glossopoet you can allow for the adjectivisation of any noun, either through affixes, or through word order (like we do in English by whacking it before the thing it describes). This would thus leave you with two choices (or perhaps 3): i, a genetive construction (The Navy of the Stars); ii, an affix-y construction (The Starry Navy); iii, a word-ordery-y construction (The Star Navy).

The matter remains the same but slightly more complex with Star Marine Corps. Presumably, this organisation is derived from a former Marine Corps, which could be variously translated as 'The Corps of the Sea' (genetive construction), 'The Sea-ish Corps' (affix-y construction; and incidentally the same as Marine Corps), or 'The Sea Corps' with the noun acting as an adjective. Which then leads to the following possible translations for Star Marine Corps:

1. The Corps of the Sea of the Stars
2. The Sea-ish Corps of the Stars
3. The Sea Corps of the Stars
4. The Starry Corps of the Sea
5. The Starry Sea-ish Corps
6. The Starry Sea Corps
7. The Star(s) Corps of the Sea
8. The Star(s) Sea-ish Corps
9. The Star(s) Sea Corps

I hope this helps, though I may be out on a limb.
holbuzvala
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 189
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala »

@everyone

Are there any languages for which the alienable-inalienable possession distiction is allowed only for animate things? Or if none come to mind, can you think of examples of some broadly genetive relationship between two inanimate things that would be alienable?

In my mind, animate things can have inalienable things, like qualities and parts of the whole (the man's hand); and can 'have' alienable ones (the man's pen) pretty easily.

Inanimate things have qualities and parts too (the rock's colour; the cliff's face), but I am currently struggling to think of anything inanimate that has an alienable relationship with something else.

Any help would be most appreciated, and if worse comes to worse I'll just include it in my lang and have it be so.
yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 337
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 »

holbuzvala wrote: 28 Sep 2018 19:41 @yangi

A few qs to clarify some points:
1. By "Latin's noun-adj variant", do you mean that adjectives (on the whole) follow nouns in Ddoean?
2. Can you provide a gloss for Naxaesh Auoraae, and Oeddou Vlaea and Vlaea Oeddouji please?

The caveats to my reply are:
1. I don't know lots about Latin
2. I assume Ddoean is your own conlang.
3. I assume 'Star' here means having to do with outer space, as opposed to just really good soldiers.
4. I assume I know what your question is asking.

So, jumping right in: Based on what I know, Latin would have translated 'Star Navy' along the lines of 'Navy of the Stars' using a genitive construction:

Star Navy
classis stellarum
fleet.NOM.S star.GEN.PL

But, as a glossopoet you can allow for the adjectivisation of any noun, either through affixes or through word order (like we do in English by whacking it before the thing it describes). This would thus leave you with two choices (or perhaps 3): i, a genitive construction (The Navy of the Stars); ii, an affix-y construction (The Starry Navy); iii, a word-ordery-y construction (The Star Navy).

The matter remains the same but slightly more complex with Star Marine Corps. Presumably, this organisation is derived from a former Marine Corps, which could be variously translated as 'The Corps of the Sea' (genitive construction), 'The Sea-ish Corps' (affix-y construction; and incidentally the same as Marine Corps), or 'The Sea Corps' with the noun acting as an adjective. Which then leads to the following possible translations for Star Marine Corps:

1. The Corps of the Sea of the Stars
2. The Sea-ish Corps of the Stars
3. The Sea Corps of the Stars
4. The Starry Corps of the Sea
5. The Starry Sea-ish Corps
6. The Starry Sea Corps
7. The Star(s) Corps of the Sea
8. The Star(s) Sea-ish Corps
9. The Star(s) Sea Corps

I hope this helps, though I may be out on a limb.
It helps a lot. And, I meant that they prefer ordering adjectives after the nouns they modify. They were obtusely conservative and never simplified "(Star) Naval Infantry Brigade/Corps" (started with 3500 soldiers; now has 35,000 soldiers) to "(Star) Marine Brigade/Corps" officially, even though the latter terminology has been in colloquial use for several years. Yes, it dates back to their terrestrial Naval Infantry formation.

Gloss
Naxaesh Aouraae: The Empress' Military, as provided
Oeddou [ø̞ˈd̪͡ð.u]: Star (cf. the Sun) (n.)
Vlaea [ˈvle.ɑ]: Navy (n.) (thus, Oeddou Vlaea for Star Navy)
Oeddouji [ø̞ˈd̪͡ð.u.ʎi] (poss. adjectivization of oeddou): Of the stars (thus, Vlaea Oeddouji for Star Navy)
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on 30 Sep 2018 01:05, edited 3 times in total.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 10373
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: UTC-04:00

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

Post by shimobaatar »

holbuzvala wrote: 28 Sep 2018 19:45 Are there any languages for which the alienable-inalienable possession distiction is allowed only for animate things? Or if none come to mind, can you think of examples of some broadly genetive relationship between two inanimate things that would be alienable?

In my mind, animate things can have inalienable things, like qualities and parts of the whole (the man's hand); and can 'have' alienable ones (the man's pen) pretty easily.

Inanimate things have qualities and parts too (the rock's colour; the cliff's face), but I am currently struggling to think of anything inanimate that has an alienable relationship with something else.

Any help would be most appreciated, and if worse comes to worse I'll just include it in my lang and have it be so.
I'm not really familiar with any relevant natlangs, so I kind of rambled on a bit about hypotheticals before realizing that I had a pretty simple answer to your question. I'm putting my "musings", so to speak, under a spoiler. I don't know if there's any precedent for any of the scenarios I came up with below.
Spoiler:
I think that this could definitely go either way, depending on how the language answers several questions:
  • What counts as animate/inanimate?
  • What counts as possession?
  • What counts as alienable/inalienable possession?
Regarding the first question, are all animals considered animate? Maybe smaller animals aren't, or maybe animals that look/behave significantly different from humans aren't. In a language where insects are considered inanimate, a phrase like "the bee's honey" could be an example of alienable possession where the possessor is inanimate.

Regarding the second question, how do you define, as you put it, a "broadly genitive relationship"? Maybe the language only allows the genitive to be used when the possessor is animate, and requires another type of construction for when an inanimate noun "possesses" something. In other words, something like "the man's pen" would be fine, but "the cliff's face" would have to be phrased as something like "the face on the cliff", or "the rock's color" would have to be something like "the color that the rock is". Would constructions like those still fall under the umbrella of "broadly genitive"?

Regarding the third question, what counts as alienable or inalienable possession? It feels natural to me to think of body parts as inalienable possessions, and I'm pretty sure that's how they're seen in most, if not all, natlangs that make the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession, but people can lose body parts. Maybe a language spoken by a group with a significant number of people who have lost limbs in battle or at work, or a culture that cuts off certain extremities as a form of punishment, would consider body parts that someone could survive losing to be alienable possessions. Or, at least, they might speak that way about body parts that someone has already lost. On a more pleasant note, perhaps a language could consider something that someone has made to be inalienably theirs. For example, if a carpenter crafts a table, no matter who they sell it to, that table is still considered to be theirs.


There's currently a water bottle right next to me. I would think that, according the criteria for most, if not all, animacy systems, bottles would be considered inanimate. Couldn't a language hypothetically describe its contents as "the bottle's water", instead of, or in addition to, something like "the water in the bottle"? And finally, the water almost certainly wouldn't be considered an inalienable possession of the bottle, right? Once I drink it, the water will be gone, and the bottle will be empty. It's a reusable water bottle, so there wasn't any water in it when I bought it, or when it was made, and the water that the bottle will contain once I refill it later won't be the same water that's in there now.

Post #10234.
Locked