Arayaz's thread so that she doesn't flood the forum

[Arayaz]

I think it's great that you're writing a story in your conlang. Its grammar and lexicon will come to be developed in that way, to the point where you can actually say stuff in the language. Then the CBBizens can hold a Hóubenk conversation.

Well, it's not like it was impossible to say stuff in my older languages! But it's true that this way, I'll be much more familiar with the language, and its use will be easier for me.

Perhaps sometime I'll send an audio recording of the entirety of Toxèix Haio iu, in the spirit of the audio relay. That'd be a true challenge! No promises, of course.

I enjoyed this a lot, so maybe I'll try to do a story every week in Hóubenk Xúuuatxia! Again, no promises. But it'd sure be fun!

[Visions1]

The long-awaited sequel!

[Arayaz]

The long-awaited sequel!

Indeed! Did you enjoy it? I worry I made it a bit unclear what Haio was doing.

[_Just_A_Sketch]

That was a fantastic story! I hope I can get my conlangs to a point where I can write in them soon, it looks really fun.

[Arayaz]

That was a fantastic story! I hope I can get my conlangs to a point where I can write in them soon, it looks really fun.

Thank you

[Arayaz]

I really need an actual name for Hóubenk. Especially since (1) that's not a valid word anymore and (2) I hate its sound. I think I'll build its name off of xúuan "mouth, voice"; it'd be followed by a relativized stative verb with the semantic range "good, familiar, normal." Now I get to think about what sound I want for the name. After some experimentation, I settled on xúuan-uat-ia, which phonetically becomes xúuuatxia, which is wonderful. Thus Hóubenk becomes the amazing Xúuuatxia.

(Now to scroll through all my posts and rename it...)

Edit: Oh, this is my most-posted topic now!

Edit: I messed up; it should be xúuuantxia

Edit: Wait, I didn't mess up. The /ə̃/ got deleted by the vowel squashing which prevented nasalization of everything. Thank goodness.

[Arayaz]

Xúuuatxia: Miscellany and Cleanup 1
Reflexives, reduplication, and an endonym

REFLEXIVES
In Toxèix Haio iu - ostoaxiia, I used the reflexive suffix -an. At least, I think I did ... I made a note to myself that -an was a reflexive, at least, which makes me think that i probably used it there. Ah, here ─ oiùan, translated as "to leave." Ah, I made a note in my lexicon:

oiù vt. to steal, to take (negative connotation); (with refl.) to flee

So the reflexive has been lexicalized (idiomized?) in some circumstances. But it probably also functions as a regular reflexive, with one being able to say, for example, txìdìanmon kon "I changed myself." That works.


REDUPLICATION
I have at least two lexemes derived via full reduplication of another word. The first is hýxìuhýxìu "to be ten in number," which is a full reduplication of hýxìu "to be five in number." I also have kouxìkouxì "to drown," which is a full reduplication of kouxì "to drink water." I should point out that kouxìkouxì is able to take two arguments, and kouxì is not, although Xúuuatxia in general is allowed to, like English, play fast and loose with valence (my form of a break after working with Areyaxi languages for so long, which have strict rules about transitivity and parts of speech. No zero-derivation there!), so this may be fine. The meaning in the first is a quite literal doubling, and the meaning in the second an intensification. But this is a reconcilable difference, since the first one is a numeral. I could restrict the meaning of full reduplication to intensifiers, but as I said, I want to allow for more creativity here, so perhaps it could also be a frequentative of some sort. Anyway, "to drown" could be a frequentative of "to drink" too.
That's just verbs, though. A reduplicated noun could well form an augmentative, but a collective meaning would also make sense. So perhaps it's fluid between those two meanings depending on the word.


ENDONYM
Since we have the name Xúuuatxia now, I figure I might as well name the speakers. I think I'd use the same uatxia, and have as the first element íoan, meaning "people." Thus Xúuuatxia is spoken by the Íouatxia. That latter word is an excellent example of how brutal the allophonic processes in this language can be ─ phonemically, its morphemes are /i-ŋɔ̃˥-a-uat˧-ia/, and here it is phonetically being [i̯o˥˩u̯ʌ˧tʃi̯ə˧], which isn't that bad, but still...

[Kesshin]

A reduplicated noun could well form an augmentative, but a collective meaning would also make sense. So perhaps it's fluid between those two meanings depending on the word.

I'm hoping this isn't a dumb question...
So íoaníoan could be "humanely" or "people(all of them, in general)"?

[Visions1]

The long-awaited sequel!

Indeed! Did you enjoy it? I worry I made it a bit unclear what Haio was doing.

I thought it was nice. I should add, I did not expect the ending.
The way the orthography looks is quite nice as well, I should add.

[Arayaz]

A reduplicated noun could well form an augmentative, but a collective meaning would also make sense. So perhaps it's fluid between those two meanings depending on the word.

I'm hoping this isn't a dumb question...
So íoaníoan could be "humanely" or "people(all of them, in general)"?

It would be "great human" or "group of people." But also, that's six vowels in a row, which isn't at all legal here. The middle two would be deleted, producing íooan.

The long-awaited sequel!

Indeed! Did you enjoy it? I worry I made it a bit unclear what Haio was doing.

I thought it was nice. I should add, I did not expect the ending.
The way the orthography looks is quite nice as well, I should add.

Thank you!

[Arayaz]

Another Sketchlang

/t~d tʰ tʃ~dʒ tʃʰ k~ɡ kʰ/ <d t j c g k>
/m n ɲ ŋ/ <m n ny ng>
/s ʂ/ <s ṡ>
/ɾ~z r ɻ~ȥ l j w/ <r rr ż l y w>

/i u/ <i u>
/ə~a~ɐ~i~u~∅/ <see below>
/a~ɐ/ <a>

• The unaspirated stops are usually voiceless at word boundaries and voiced elsewhere; however, there is individual and dialectical variation here.
• The non-trill rhotics /ɾ ɻ/ usually become [z ȥ] word-initially.
• The trill /r/ only occurs intervocallicaly may not occur word-initially. When it would, a copy vowel is inserted before it.
• /a/ becomes [ɐ] around retroflex consonants.
• The schwa becomes a copy of the vowel immediately before it, or disappears in word-initial syllables. It is romanized as such. (This occurs from left to right, so it appears as a schwa only in the environment #CəC_, which becomes [CCə].)

This language would have CV(m, n, ɲ, ŋ, l, j, w) syllable structure, with zero-onset syllables being disallowed. The coda nasal consonants are, like in many Australian languages, not prone to assimilation to the following consonant, and may even spread their place of articulation onto a following stop (this, though, is uncommon in this language).

Beginnings of grammar in the next post.

[Arayaz]

[Unnamed] Parts of Speech

In this language, it is an open area of debate how many parts of speech should be considered separate. The leading analysis is that there is an open class of nouns and an open class of adjectives, both of which may be used predicatively (and encompassing most verb-like meanings; the adjectives may also be used in a nominative manner), and a small closed class of verbs, which may only be used predicatively. In addition, there is a class of adpositions that should be considered separate.

NOUNS
When used in a nominative manner, nouns take marking for number and possession, but nothing else.
When used in a verbal manner, nouns take marking for several tenses and aspects, agreement with both subject and object, a set of evidentials, and some mood marking.

ADJECTIVES
When used in a nominative manner, adjectives take marking for number and possession, but nothing else.
When used in an adjectival manner, adjectives take no marking.
When used in a verbal manner, adjectives take marking for several tenses and aspects, subject agreement, a set of evidentials, and some mood marking.

VERBS
Verbs take marking for several tenses and aspects, subject agreement, a set of evidentials, and some mood marking.

ADPOSITIONS
Adpositions take marking for agreement with their object.

Next up: some morphology.

[Arayaz]

[Unnamed] Tense and Aspect

Predicates in this language inflect for tense, aspect, mood, and agreement.

TENSE AND ASPECT
This language distinguishes past (usually -gə) versus present (-m(ə)) versus future (-w(ə)) in tense, and distinguishes nonpersistent (-n(ə)) versus persistent (usually -cə) in aspect in the past and future tenses. The exact meanings of these combinations, however, vary.

In the past tense, the nonpersistent aspect expresses that a situation once held, but no longer holds at the present time. It makes no claims about the completedness of the activity.

jinyginṡu
jiny-gə-n-ṡu
run-PST-NPERS-1sg
"I was running" or "I ran"

dgaŋganṡum
dəgaŋ-gə-n-ṡu-m
make-PST-NPERS-1sg-3sg
"I was making it"

kiżaganṡu
kiża-gə-n-ṡu
camel-PST-NPERS-1sg
"I was a camel"

In the past tense, the persistent aspect expresses that the situation held at a past time and still holds at the time of speaking. The past persistent is, instead of -gəcə, -jə.

jinyjiṡu
jiny-jə-ṡu
run-PST.PERS-1sg
"I've been running"

dgaŋjaṡum
dəgaŋ-jə-ṡu-m
make-PST.PERS-1sg-3sg
"I've been working on it"

kiżajaṡu
kiża-jə-ṡu
camel-PST.PERS-1sg
"I've been a camel"

The present tense is always imperfective.

jinymiṡu
jiny-mə-ṡu
run-PRES-1sg
"I'm running"

dgaŋmaṡum
dəgaŋ-mə-ṡu-m
make-PRES-1sg-3sg
"I'm working on it"

kiżamaṡu
kiża-mə-ṡu
camel-PRES-1sg
"I'm a camel"

In the future tense, the nonpersistent aspect expresses that a situation does not currently hold, but will occur at some point in the future.

jinywinṡu
jiny-wə-n-ṡu
run-FUT-NPERS-1sg
"I'll run"

dgaŋwanṡum
dəgaŋ-wə-n-ṡu-m
make-PST-NPERS-1sg-3sg
"I'll be making it"

kiżawnṡu
kiża-w-n-ṡu
camel-PST-NPERS-1sg
"I'll be a camel"

In the future tense, the persistent aspect expresses that the situation holds at the current time and will still hold at some point in the future.

jinywiciṡu
jiny-wə-cə-ṡu
run-FUT-PERS-1sg
"I'll still be running"

dgaŋwacaṡum
dəgaŋ-wə-cə-ṡu-m
make-FUT-PERS-1sg-3sg
"I'll still be working on it"

kiżawacaṡu
kiża-wə-cə-ṡu
camel-FUT-PERS-1sg
"I'll still be a camel"

[Arayaz]

[Unnamed] Mood

Predicates in this language inflect for tense, aspect, mood, and agreement.

This language distinguishes realis (unmarked), subjunctive (mə-), conditional (rru-), and imperative (ji-) moods.

The realis mood is used for factual statements.

jinymiṡu
jiny-mə-ṡu
run-PRES-1sg
"I'm running"

The subjunctive mood is used in subclauses, but may also be used on its own to indicate a hypothetical situation ─ one that isn't true, but might be in the future (future tense), could have been (past), or could have been at the time of speaking (present).

mjinymiṡu
mə-jiny-mə-ṡu
SJV-run-PRES-1sg
"I could have been running right now"

mjinywinṡu
mə-jiny-wə-n-ṡu
SJV-run-FUT-NPERS-1sg
"I might be running then"

mjinyginṡu
mə-jiny-gə-n-ṡu
SJV-run-PST-NPERS-1sg
"I could have run"

The conditional mood is used for statements the happening of which depends on some other condition.

urrujinymiciṡu
rru-jiny-mə-cə-ṡu
COND-run-FUT-PERS-1sg
"I'll still be running if..."

The imperative mood is used for commands, and may be used with any person. Imperative verbs may not receive inflection for tense or aspect.

jijinyla
ji-jiny-la
IMP-run-2sg
"Run!"

[Arayaz]

[Unnamed] Verb Agreement

Predicates in this language inflect for tense, aspect, mood, and agreement.

SUBJECT
sg/pl
1 -ṡu / -cu
2 -la / -(ə)ljə
3 -m* / -(ə)rr
*unmarked in intransitive clauses

OBJECT
sg/pl
1 -ṡu / -cu
2 -la / -(ə)ljə
3 -m(ə) / -(ə)rr
Reflexive: -nyung

nyajamcunyung
nyajə-m-cu-nyung
see-PRES-1PL-REFL
"We see ourselves"

urrunyajaganlarr
rru-nyajə-gə-n-la-rr
COND-see-PST-NPRS-2SG-3PL
"You would have seen them"

[Arayaz]

I've decided not to include evidentials in this language after all. I think the verbal system is already enough, and honestly, I'm a bit worried about working out their interactions with the moods. I might re-evolve them later, though.

[Arayaz]

[Unnamed] Nominal Inflection

Nouns in this language inflect primarily for number. They may be pluralized with a prefix də-, but there is also a distributive plural məlaŋ-. The distributive plural marks a disassociation between multiple referents: in different places, acting independently, etc.

kiża arramganamṡu
kiża rram-gə-nə-m-ṡu
camel attack-PST-NPERS-3SG-1SG
"A camel attacked me."

dkiża arramganarrṡu
də-kiża rram-gə-nə-rr-ṡu
PL-camel attack-PST-NPERS-3PL-1SG
"Some camels attacked me (working together)."

mlaŋkiża arramganarrṡu
məlaŋ-kiża rram-gə-nə-rr-ṡu
DISTR-camel attack-PST-NPERS-3PL-1SG
"Some camels attacked me (on separate occasions)."

However, nouns may also take possessive suffixes. These are the verb agreement suffixes plus an additional suffix -gi.

kiżaljagi
kiża-ljə-gi
camel-2PL-POS
"Y'all's camel"

With the distributive plural and a plural possessor, the implied meaning is that each possessor owns a separate one of the noun, rather than collective ownership.

dkiżaljagi arramganarrṡu
də-kiża-ljə-gi rram-gə-nə-rr-ṡu
PL-camel-2PL-POS attack-PST-NPERS-3PL-1SG
"Y'all's camels (that you own together) attacked me."

mlaŋkiżaljagi arramganarrṡu
məlaŋ-kiża-ljə-gi rram-gə-nə-rr-ṡu
DISTR-camel-2PL-POS attack-PST-NPERS-3PL-1SG
"Y'all's camels (each of you having your own camel) attacked me."

[Arayaz]

A Tonal Anglic Language (Ẹlnk?)

Derived from Old English. Probably not spoken on Earth, since the nearest contour-tone languages to the Anglo-Saxons were relatively far, and I don't wanna work out interactions with real languages. So this is more a thought experiment, I suppose, unless I get (or someone else gives me) a better idea of setting, lol.

Sound changes:

• Short vowels become high tone ˥ after voiceless consonants (semivowels being transparent to this); long vowels and diphthongs become falling tone ˥˩ after voiceless consonants
• Vowels become low tone ˩ after voiced consonants or word-initially
• *h is lost; *ç fortifies to *ʃ; *θ merges with *f
• *b *d *dʒ *ɡ devoice to *p *t *tʃ *k; *v *ð *z *ɣ lenite to *ʋ *ɹ *r *w
• *n̥ *r̥ *l̥ *ʍ voice to *n *r *l *w
• *y *yː → *i *iː around palatals, → *u *uː elsewhere
• *æ *æː → *e *eː around palatals, → *ɑ *ɑː elsewhere
• Short mid vowels *e *o become *ɛ *ɔ
• *t *tʃ *s *ʃ become *ʈ *ʈ *ʂ *ʂ before rhotic consonants and *t͡ɬ *t͡ɬ *ɬ *ɬ before lateral consonants, in which case said rhotic or lateral is deleted
• When fricatives cluster with stops or affricates, the stop or affricate becomes a copy of the fricative
• Coda *p *t *tʃ *k become *ʔ, then reduce to a change in the tone of the previous vowel from *˩ *˥ *˥˩ to *˩˥ *˥ˀ *˥ˀ˧
• Coda *f *s *ʃ *x become *h, then reduce to a change in the tone of the previous vowel from *˩ *˥ *˥˩ to *˩ *˥˩ *˧˩
• Except in the first syllable of a word, the first segment of rising diphthongs sometimes metathesizes with a previous consonant. This happens when the other segment of the diphthong would then be elided in the change listed below (these changes are part of a single complex change).
• Except in monosyllabic words, short vowels at word boundaries or VC_C# or #C_CV are lost (VCV → VC; priority to middle syllable in trisyllabic words); their tone affects the tone of the previous vowel if they end on a different tone level than the previous vowel. I trust myself to remember the details here, which may or may not be a good idea lol
• *f is deleted in several common words
• *t *tʃ *s *ʃ become *ʈ *ʈ *ʂ *ʂ before rhotic consonants and *t͡ɬ *t͡ɬ *ɬ *ɬ before lateral consonants, in which case said rhotic or lateral is deleted (again)
• Vowel length is no longer contrastive
• When a cluster at a word boundary violates the sonority hierarchy, it metathesizes/rearranges to the proper order (maybe?)
• Stops and nasals are lost before other nasal consonants, unless they are a voiceless stop followed by a heterorganic nasal

Applying this to a couple words gives good results:

*lǣwend "traitor" → lɑwn˩˥
*hlōþian "to rob" → lojɹn˥˩
*trendel "circle" → ʈɛnt͡l˥˩
*þīedan "to join" → fjint˥˩

I'm not sure how I'll spell everything, but these could be along the lines of láun, lòirn, trẹ̀ntl, fyìnt, which I like overall.

Edit: Oh, how could I forget:

*englisċ "English" → ɛlŋk˩ Ẹlnk

[WeepingElf]

A Tonal Anglic Language (Ẹlnk?)

Derived from Old English. Probably not spoken on Earth, since the nearest contour-tone languages to the Anglo-Saxons were relatively far, and I don't wanna work out interactions with real languages. So this is more a thought experiment, I suppose, unless I get (or someone else gives me) a better idea of setting, lol.

It is IMHO indeed better to do this as just a thought experiment than to force it into some implausible alternative history setting. I mean, thinks like Breathanach or Wenedyk are nice experiments with interesting results, but there is no way changing history such that Latin gets carried to Scotland and Poland and emulates the sound changes of Scots Gaelic or Polish. Of course, one could have an alternative history with an even stronger Roman Empire that conquers these lands, but that would throw history so far off the known path that there would be nothing recognizable as "Scotland" or "Poland" but with a Romance language. This is one of the reasons why I quit Ill Bethisad long ago, and the reason why Raymond Brown built Britainese as a response on Brithenig.

[Arayaz]

[Unnamed] Lexicon

NOUNS
cal night(time)
kiża camel
nəkad the previous day-night cycle
rram attacker, aggressor
ṡədi rain

ADJECTIVES
jiny running, moving quickly

VERBS
dəgaŋ to make, to create, to work on
nyajə to see, to perceive, to look at, to notice

ADPOSITIONS
bə inessive (can be temporal)
ji locative

OTHER (???)
-əd proximal