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

[Nloki]

Hi. I've come up with three brief questions I'd be very thankful for someone to answer.
•Are Nominative-Accusative languages likely to evolve into Ergative-Absolutive or viceversa?
Are both types of alignment systems more common to evolve into split Ergative?
•Is a conlang evolved from an a priori conlang also another a priori conlang? Or rather an a posteriori conlang (since its based in another language (construced or not)).
•Would it be a good idea to create new daughter languages within Tolkien's elvish languages, for instance, evolving Quenya to obtain a daughter elvish Valinórean language or enlarging Vanyarin Quendya? (Of course not pretending the resulting language to be completely yours).

Short answers

* No statistical evidence. Both directions are possible. Passive-like constructions can become abs-erg and antipassive-like constructions mom-acc.
My understanding is that the ergative is often generalized as the case of agentive intransitives as well. That can too lead to real nom-acc.
* Those terms aren't too scientific. My understanding is that a-posteriori langs are based on natural languages.
* That's up to you! What do you like. One shouldn't care on others opinions on such questions.

Thank you Omzinesý.
And, if you (not necessarily Omzinesý) don't mind, another three doubts...
•Whether do we consider a sound is a phoneme or an allophone?
Although it may first seem a silly question, let's see an example:
—Jēhu (¿?) > Allophony:
"All voiced obstruents turn voiced word initially".
So there may be two ways to see it?:
-/d̪ ɟ g/→[t̪ c k] or
-/t̪ c k/→[d̪ ɟ g]?
Which are allophones and which are phonemes in each case? How is that determined?
•Are there any attested languages with no labial sounds at all? Would it be naturalistic to do so in a conlang?
•Are romanizations likely to include graphemes for allophones? (even though selectively?)
For example having no distinct graphemes for allophone codas but rather for intervocalic obstruent allophones?

[yangfiretiger121]

Is the uvulo-epiglottal stop, [q͡ʡ], subject to the back vowel constraint?

[Sumelic]

•Are there any attested languages with no labial sounds at all? Would it be naturalistic to do so in a conlang?

I haven't read of any natural languages that lack all kinds of labials (e.g. not only bilabials, but also labiodental fricatives, labialized consonants, and the labiovelar approximant). But there are languages that have no bilabial plosives or fricatives, discussed in this WALS chapter: Absence of Common Consonants, by Ian Maddieson.

The conlang Dothraki, designed by David J. Peterson, and intended to be naturalistic since it is not a conlang in its fictional context, does not have bilabial plosives in the standardized reference pronunciation of its native inherited vocabulary, but they apparently show up in names, and [p b] are supposed to exist for some speakers in-universe as alternative or dialectal free variant realizations of /f/ and /v/. Dothraki does have /m/.

[sangi39]

Is the uvulo-epiglottal stop, [q͡ʡ], subject to the back vowel constraint?

As in "it only appears adjacent to back vowels" or "causes front vowels to back", it doesn't seem to. The one example given by Wikipedia of it in a word is [q͡ʡíìq͡ʡ] in Somali.

[Nloki]

Thank you Sumeli. Now, another "question" (not to say an extensive topic):
For a long time I've been (psychologically) unable to conlang, and I need help. Yes, I know this sounds kind of weird (or even worse), but I'll better set a context and explain in detail.
Right now I don't remember when did I begin learning Quenya, maybe five months ago or something, and I have kept copying vocabulary, grammar and translating poems or things into Quenya so far.
Although, as I kept focusing each time more on it, I left conlanging almost totally, and every time I tried to start or continue any grammar sketch, I kind of forced myself to remember that my work was worthless, that I would never get even a bit closer to such perfection Quenya has (not even far from that), etc. I mean, one thing is being personally aware that Quenya (and Tolkien's languages in general) are among the best (if not the greatest) conlangs ever created, and on the other hand letting such awareness inhibit myself, to the point of not being able to conlang at all. With this I don't mean that I'm used to compare myself with Tolkien (since doing so would be at least one of the worst sins in conlanging history (even if no one could know)), not at all, but rather that the perfection of his languages inhibits me from creating other things.
For instance: creating a grammatical number system for conlang X.
-Step one: reviewing Quenya's number system.
-Step two: admitting that I can't do nothing better thing than that but doing the same for nothing because I would just be copying it and doing so would make me a plagier or even worse, a liar.
-Step three: scrapping the grammar sketch completely.
-Final Step: realising how much I hate this to happen again and again.
Searching for conlanging resources and trying to learn a lot doesn't help, at the moment of truth (when I decide to create the morphology), I look back at Quenya, say to myself: "Well, it's just going to be another awful piece of sh*t, so why even attempting?" and give up again. This situation has been repeating day after day, week after week, for even months, and I don't know what to do. I desperately need help, these thoughts are destroying the almost only hobby in my life, which is conlanging, and I don't want to leave it at all (if I haven't done so yet). But I also don't want to remove Quenya totally from my life, as everyone would suggest throwing out my grammar and vocabulary or whatever Quenya notes (as I did with the ones of Finnish nearly six months ago because I was a complete stupid, silly idiot, etc. (not to keep insulting myself nonsensically even more)).
Of course all of this is totally subjective, but I don't know where to obtain help if not here.
So, what should I do to start conlanging again without removing Quenya from my life?
Thanks.

[Pabappa]

Quenya's not perfect. Find something in it you can do better....even if its a small thing.....and maybe that'll help.

[Nachtuil]

I am currently playing around with a language with where /tʃ dʒ k/ go to [ʃ ʒ x] in word final position while /t d/ are unchanged in final coda. (The language lacks g and /p b/ don't go in coda). I'll probably keep doing it anyway but does anyone know of language that has word final lenition of only select obstruents? Usually lenition is word internal, or? It is something I've never really investigated deeply.
Edit: Would something like this kind of lenition occurring word internally for onsets that are not part stressed syllables be pretty realistic?

Edit2:
Nloki, if you're only going to compare your own languages to a singular source of inspiration you're never going to match it except by copying it. Tolkien didn't have access to anywhere near the diversity of language grammars we now enjoy. I guarantee for instance you can find different and interesting number systems in other world languages. Try your hand at a base five or base twelve system. Maybe look at the Ainu number system as it is interesting. Keep your Quenya notes but I think you should spend time looking at other real world languages and play around with some of the grammatical features and processes you find there. Maybe dig a few of the speedlangs on this forum and try your hand at a few with the goal of just putting something down and testing things out. You gotta take the pressure off yourself :) I can relate to always wanting to find the most interesting/best way to do things as it prevents me from doing things too. I think one of the 'problems' with conlanging may be that there is no 'best way' to do something. I would definitely force yourself to do a few quick sketches playing with interesting features without pressuring yourself.

[Nloki]

Edit2:
Nloki, if you're only going to compare your own languages to a singular source of inspiration you're never going to match it except by copying it. Tolkien didn't have access to anywhere near the diversity of language grammars we now enjoy. I guarantee for instance you can find different and interesting number systems in other world languages. Try your hand at a base five or base twelve system. Maybe look at the Ainu number system as it is interesting. Keep your Quenya notes but I think you should spend time looking at other real world languages and play around with some of the grammatical features and processes you find there. Maybe dig a few of the speedlangs on this forum and try your hand at a few with the goal of just putting something down and testing things out. You gotta take the pressure off yourself :) I can relate to always wanting to find the most interesting/best way to do things as it prevents me from doing things too. I think one of the 'problems' with conlanging may be that there is no 'best way' to do something. I would definitely force yourself to do a few quick sketches playing with interesting features without pressuring yourself.

Thank you very much, Nachtuil. Although, what I maybe missed to say is: the problem isn't the grammar itself, since I personally think Quenya "would be better" Split-Ergative and using some words instead of others I personally don't find phonoaesthetically pleasing (e.g. "nasar" or another variants from Vanyarin Quenya or even my own word "narnë" for "red" instead of "carnë", since it makes me think on flesh and... well it's kind of disgusting if a word for red somehow reminds you on flesh (again this is totally subjective since my native language is Spanish, so there may be the reason)). The main problem is the phonoaesthetical "influence" (rather inhibition) that Quenya takes on me (it sounds strange, but I even give up for little affixes). In fact, I think I chose a bad example with grammatical number. Or maybe I just didn't explain it well regarding such point. For example, I love the plural nominative affix -r, and also the -i plurals, and also the uses of the partitive, and also the dual... but it's more a kind of problem with morphophonoaesthetics rather than with anything else. And much more than that, its astonishing amount of vocabulary. I've heard just everywhere things like "...since Quenya is not a complete language at all...", "...of course Quenya lacks a lot of vocabulary...", etc. etc. things of sort, but those people simply don't get to notice how incredible are Tolkien's languages...
["damn it", facepalm]
Well, it seems like I'm possessed by Quenya anyway, so who should care? Sorry for wasting your time, my apologies.
Thanks.

[Nachtuil]

Nloki:
You need not apologise. I actually think it is nice that someone appreciates someone else's conlang so much. It is a classic in our craft. :)

[Ahzoh]

Seven ten two = 27?
Seven ten two one = 20/7?

Yes, minus the "one", it's just "seven-NMLZ ten two"

[Tuyono]

Źilaa Ruńu is nearly two years old and still has no reciprocal construction I want some kind of adverb or particle to be used for that,but it's hard come up with anything that's not a direct translation of "one another". How do different languages handle this? I know that words for body parts are a common source for reflexives (so I made the reflexive marker very sinilar to the word 'head'). Does something similar happen with reciprocals?

[Omzinesý]

Źilaa Ruńu is nearly two years old and still has no reciprocal construction I want some kind of adverb or particle to be used for that,but it's hard come up with anything that's not a direct translation of "one another". How do different languages handle this? I know that words for body parts are a common source for reflexives (so I made the reflexive marker very sinilar to the word 'head'). Does something similar happen with reciprocals?

Arabic and Russian derive their reciprocal pronouns from ' friend'.

[holbuzvala]

@Tuyono

Classical Arabic has two reciprocal constructions I know of. One is to use the word 'some' ("ba3ḍ") /baʕdˤ/ twice, the first instance usually taking a plural pronoun suffix, and the second taking the definite article 'al'.

li-ba3ḍ-ihim al-ba3ḍ
for-other-3PL.M DEF-other
"For the other of them the other"
For each other.

The second thing Arabic does is to use a special reciprocal verb form (Form VI). If the root letters are 1-2-3, then the form looks like 'ta1ā2a3a'.

Kānū yatakātabūna
be.3PL.M.PST write.RECIP.3PL.M.PRS
"They were they are writing reciprocally"
They were writing to each other/ They were corresponding.

Russian is similar to English, but instead of saying 'one another' they use an abbreviated form of the adjective 'other' (drugoi) and double it, adding whatever necessary preposition between them. You could have a play around with cases if you got 'em.

Oni poxozhi drug na druga
3PL resemble.PL other.NOM on other.ACC/GEN
"They resemble other on other"
They resemble each other.

Japanese has two strategies: using an explicit reciprocal pronoun 'otagai', or using 'au' as a "reciprocal verb" (but more like an infix - depends how you analyse it). Sometimes it uses them together!

Junichi to Yoko ga otogai o ai-shi-te-iru
Junichi CONJ Yoko SUBJ RECIP OBJ love-do-TE.FORM-PRS.CONT
"Junichi and Yoko each other love"
Junichi and Yoko love each other.

Junichi to Yoko ga ai-shi-au-te-iru
Junichi CONJ Yoko SUBJ love-do-RECIP-TE.FORM-PRS.CONT
"Junichi and Yoko mutually love"
Junichi and Yoko love each other.

Junichi to Yoko ga otogai o ai-shi-au-te-iru
Junichi CONJ Yoko SUBJ RECIP OBJ love-do-RECIP-TE.FORM-PRS.CONT
"Junichi and Yoko each other love mutually"
Junichi and Yoko love each other.

Check out this paper for further specifics of the Japanese model, and ideas on reciprocity generally: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00130235

Hope this helps!

N.B. When I write 'PST' and 'PRS' for the Arabic examples, these don't exactly refer to past and present, but rather to "māḍī" and "muḍāri3", which are usually translated as 'past' and 'present', but in fact are more like aspectual encodings (which explains why they can coexist).
P.S. please forgive the broad phonetic transcriptions - they're meant only to be illustrative, not accurate.
P.P.S. Omi might be right about the reciprocal coming from 'friend' instead of 'other' in Russian. You'll have to look it up to be sure. Maybe they come from the same source? As in, referring to one's friend as one's "other (half)"?

---

I had a question of my own, but got so into this answer I forgot!

[Creyeditor]

Źilaa Ruńu is nearly two years old and still has no reciprocal construction I want some kind of adverb or particle to be used for that,but it's hard come up with anything that's not a direct translation of "one another". How do different languages handle this? I know that words for body parts are a common source for reflexives (so I made the reflexive marker very sinilar to the word 'head'). Does something similar happen with reciprocals?

Yeah, time for random showing off language etymology knowledge.

German:
one reciprocal pronoun is ''ein-ander' which is literally 'one-other' or 'an-other'.
another construction uses 'sich gegen-seit-ig', which could be glossed as 'REFL against-side-ADJ' or less literally 'self mutual'

French, etc:
A lot of languages just use the reflexive marker and you get ambiguity.

Indonesian has three reciprocal expression
`baku' can also mean 'standard' or 'core'
`saling' can mean 'mutually' or 'reciprocally' and can also be nominalized, so it's more like a content word
'satu sama lain' literally mean 'one with another'

Mee (Ekari, Ekagi)
Does not really have a reflexive, but has a reciprocal verb prefix that always cooccurs with pluractionality marking.

[Reyzadren]

Here are some more ways to form something that resembles the "reciprocal" from that other natlang that I speak:

+ 1-same self, as a partial plural comparative.
+ Craft with the "intransitive", "patient" and "plural" affixes/constructions. Note: These affixes by themselves don't do anything exactly as glossed and have no actual linguistic analogues, I'm just simply labelling them, their actual names are something else.

[Ælfwine]

What is the construction (both the syntax and the pronoun) called when a "redundant" pronoun is reduplicated/introduced in the same clause?

Example from my language:

Þe unts jes best mis.
"The dog he bit me."
ART.M dog-NOM.S 3SG.M bite-PRET.1.S 1SG.M

[DesEsseintes]

What is the construction (both the syntax and the pronoun) called when a "redundant" pronoun is reduplicated/introduced in the same clause?

Example from my language:

Þe unts jes best mis.
"The dog he bit me."
ART.M dog-NOM.S 3SG.M bite-PRET.1.S 1SG.M

A resumptive pronoun.

[Ælfwine]

What is the construction (both the syntax and the pronoun) called when a "redundant" pronoun is reduplicated/introduced in the same clause?

Example from my language:

Þe unts jes best mis.
"The dog he bit me."
ART.M dog-NOM.S 3SG.M bite-PRET.1.S 1SG.M

A resumptive pronoun.

Okay, I wasn't sure. Thank you.

[Tuyono]

Thank you all for the answers!

Classical Arabic has two reciprocal constructions I know of. One is to use the word 'some' ("ba3ḍ") /baʕdˤ/ twice, the first instance usually taking a plural pronoun suffix, and the second taking the definite article 'al'.

li-ba3ḍ-ihim al-ba3ḍ
for-other-3PL.M DEF-other
"For the other of them the other"
For each other.

The second thing Arabic does is to use a special reciprocal verb form (Form VI). If the root letters are 1-2-3, then the form looks like 'ta1ā2a3a'.

Kānū yatakātabūna
be.3PL.M.PST write.RECIP.3PL.M.PRS
"They were they are writing reciprocally"
They were writing to each other/ They were corresponding.

Hebrew uses the second strategy for some verbs,, including 'write', which is why I'm avoiding it (I want Źilaa Ruńu to be its own thing and not to relex too much), but I didn't know the first one.

Arabic and Russian derive their reciprocal pronouns from ' friend'.

Hebrew has this option as well, although it's very archaic. We have too many strategies and I can't even come up with a single one, hmmm...

another construction uses 'sich gegen-seit-ig', which could be glossed as 'REFL against-side-ADJ' or less literally 'self mutual'

Ha! this one is really interesting.

Indonesian has three reciprocal expression
`baku' can also mean 'standard' or 'core'

Also this one! I can't really imagine how it got both meanings

`saling' can mean 'mutually' or 'reciprocally' and can also be nominalized, so it's more like a content word

I'll probably end up using something like this.

+ Craft with the "intransitive", "patient" and "plural" affixes/constructions. Note: These affixes by themselves don't do anything exactly as glossed and have no actual linguistic analogues, I'm just simply labelling them, their actual names are something else.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "craft". Could you give an example?

[yangfiretiger121]

Vowel tone-to-length conversion may have been touched on before, but I don't feel it looking it up. Is a system deriving current vowel length from past vowel tone, such as [é è e → eː eˑ e], plausible?