There's a sticky on glossing rules in Translations, but that's about it.nmn wrote:No, that one was more of a tutorial or something. I searched it among the sticked ones, but alas none of them was it. IIRC it also had the terms of glossing explained.Ceresz wrote:Are you perhaps referring to this thread?
(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2019]
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Oh no. I already have about 50 books to read to research that novel... Why do I have to write about things I don't know?!Xonen wrote:But I don't really know... I've read a bit on bilingualism - enough to know that it's an extremely complicated thing - but not enough to feel qualified to give solid answers here. In any case, I'm not sure if this qualifies as a "quick question"; for a full answer, you might need to read a book or two on the subject.
my pronouns: they/them or e/em/eirs/emself
Main conlang: Ŋyjichɯn. Other conlangs: Tsɑkø (naming language), Ie, Tynthna, Maanxmuʃt, Ylialis
All my conlangs
Conlanging blog posts
Main conlang: Ŋyjichɯn. Other conlangs: Tsɑkø (naming language), Ie, Tynthna, Maanxmuʃt, Ylialis
All my conlangs
Conlanging blog posts
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Or could it be this thread?Ceresz wrote:There's a sticky on glossing rules in Translations, but that's about it.nmn wrote:No, that one was more of a tutorial or something. I searched it among the sticked ones, but alas none of them was it. IIRC it also had the terms of glossing explained.Ceresz wrote:Are you perhaps referring to this thread?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
The first one is the one I had in mind, but alas it doesn't show how to mark morpheme boundaries.
The secound one is also good, but has the same problem.
Doesn't anyone know this?
The secound one is also good, but has the same problem.
Doesn't anyone know this?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Again, I don't really think there is a standard for marking morpheme boundaries in sound changes. Just use whatever works for you and define your usage so people can follow your notation. I might add that while short-hand notation for phonological processes/sound changes a nice, nothing really beats a clear cut explanation. Truth be told I've never actually seen a morpheme boundary defined in a rule before. Maybe someone else can give you a better suggestion, or you could go on a massive google-hunt until you find your answer.
Edit: Might I ask what type of rule you're trying to notate? If we know what you're trying to achieve, that might help us come up with a solution for you.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
There are two rules actually, but they're analogous. One of them:
If the last vowel of the prefix is front and the first one of the root is also front, the latter disappears.
[i,e] > Ø /[i,e]C*???C*_
This has become more of a morphological rule - it works only at morpheme boundaries, not on every pair of neighbouring front vowels.
So a root *tikana when added to the prefix *te- becomes *tetkana
If the last vowel of the prefix is front and the first one of the root is also front, the latter disappears.
[i,e] > Ø /[i,e]C*???C*_
This has become more of a morphological rule - it works only at morpheme boundaries, not on every pair of neighbouring front vowels.
So a root *tikana when added to the prefix *te- becomes *tetkana
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I suppose you could write that as:
Another option would be:
Oh, and I made the onset optional because I don't know if it is or isn't optional in your language.
- i,e > Ø / {(C)i,e-}_
Another option would be:
- i,e > Ø / (C)i,e+_
Oh, and I made the onset optional because I don't know if it is or isn't optional in your language.
Edit: I found another source (a PDF) that states that + should be used to mark a morpheme boundry, so if that's eough for you just go with that. Btw, what do the asterisks stand for in your notation?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
What would a good name be for a noun that is a recipient or a destination, but is distinct from other objects?
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?
Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6352
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Recipients are often called dative; destinations and goals are often called allative.Ànradh wrote:What would a good name be for a noun that is a recipient or a destination, but is distinct from other objects?
In some languages the main difference between recipients on the one hand and destinations or goals on the other hand is that recipients are usually animate and destinations and goals are usually non-human.
If your 'lang has a case that can be used for recipients and also for destinations or goals, call it allative or call it dative.
(Or, you know, just make up your own term.)
If your language has ditransitive clauses then the recipient, if it's treated differently from either the agent or the patient of a monotransitive clause, might get called "indirect object". Otherwise, an object that's treated differently from the object of a monotransitive clause would likely be called "secondary object". Maybe your language has some tritransitive clauses; if so, maybe they have two different secondary objects, as well as a primary object and a subject.
Does any of that help at all?
I'm afraid your question was open to interpretation. I tried to answer all the likelier possible meanings.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Very much so, allative is perfect. (Already having a dative, I was stumped.)eldin raigmore wrote:Does any of that help at all?
Thanks again, eldin.
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Are there any fusional polysynthetic natlangs?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
-JRR Tolkien
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Nuuchahnulth?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
A ring below marks voicelesness, not syllabicness.Iron wrote:Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?
Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Also, take a look at the Wikipedia article on pre-stopped consonants. It should answer the rest of your question. Oh, and I posted a large pdf on North Germanic languages in the resources thread a while back, in case you want to know more about the development of these languages.Click wrote:A ring below marks voicelesness, not syllabicness.Iron wrote:Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?
Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Yea, my bad. I can't pronounce them voiceless, so I just pronounce as them as syllabic consonants, hoping no one would notice. I guess this confusion seeped into my writing as well.Click wrote:A ring below marks voicelesness, not syllabicness.Iron wrote:Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?
Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
Wikipedia doesn't actually answer how it came to be. I'll give your resources a look though, thanks.Ceresz wrote:Also, take a look at the Wikipedia article on pre-stopped consonants. It should answer the rest of your question. Oh, and I posted a large pdf on North Germanic languages in the resources thread a while back, in case you want to know more about the development of these languages.Click wrote:A ring below marks voicelesness, not syllabicness.Iron wrote:Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?
Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Tlingit?Shemtov wrote:Are there any fusional polysynthetic natlangs?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Navajo?Shemtov wrote:Are there any fusional polysynthetic natlangs?
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6352
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I'm afraid I don't remember which ones, but, yes, some Native American polysynthetic languages have a fused prefix on the verb that tells the gender, number, and person of both the Agent and the Patient; and does so fusionally, that is, there is not any obvious phonological parallelism between the prefix for, say,Shemtov wrote:Are there any fusional polysynthetic natlangs?
- masculine singular 3rd-person agent and 1st-person singular patient
- masculine singular 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person singular patient
- masculine singular 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person plural patient
- masculine plural 3rd-person agent and 1st-person singular patient
- masculine plural 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person singular patient
- masculine plural 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person plural patient
- feminine singular 3rd-person agent and 1st-person singular patient
- feminine singular 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person singular patient
- feminine singular 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person plural patient
- feminine plural 3rd-person agent and 1st-person singular patient
- feminine plural 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person singular patient
- feminine plural 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person plural patient
- Whether it has one or fewer participants (e.g. just a subject), or instead has two or more participants (e.g. both an agent and a patient).
- Whether or not any of its participants is non-3rd-person, that is, is a "local person" (1st or 2nd) or speech-act-participant (speaker or addressee).
- Whether or not any of its participants 3rd-person, that is, is not a "local person" or speech-act-participant.
- Whether or not any of its participants is animate.
- Whether or not any of its participants is inanimate.
I could be wrong.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
What language has the most comlex (measured with the number of forms), productive Tense-Aspect-Mood system?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760