New CBB

Ogoneks for everyone.


Wouldn't it ruin the purpose of the numeral orthography if you added some more? Of course you could add one more, but, yeah.

_________________
= | = | = | = | = | =
‹› · Ḿḿ Ńń Ĺĺ Śś Źź Ąą Ǫǫ Ųų Æ̨æ̨ Ǽǽ Œ̨œ̨ Œ́œ́ Ɣɣ Y̋y̋ Įį Şş Z̧z̧ θ
Āā Ēē Īī Ōō Ūū ↗ Ṭṭ C̣c̣ Łł Ḍḍ Ṣṣ Ẓẓ Ṇṇ Ŋŋ e˞ o˞ ʷ ʲ ʰ ə

Should I try to revive Pazmat?

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

Would it interest you to do so?

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

I have been mulling over this for a while:

Mychai has case marking, and I don't like the idea of having dedicated passive constructions. How does dropping the subject from the sentence to form a passive like construction sound?

Does this happen naturally?

So for example an SVO clause would become VO only ?
It seems workable, except I don't think you can have a verb without some sort of subject, so your passive clause would really be Verb-Subject, where the Subject is also the Patient.
the cat eats the mouse -> is_eaten the mouse

_________________
grammaire du jrawélien - textes - lexique - miscellanées

Well, that's my point; I wanted to have a subject-less construction to move attention to the direct object.
Since Mychai has case marking, it's never really unclear what the subject or direct object are.

E.g.

Chlab-úv ithe thn-i.
Bread-ACC 2SG.NOM eat-PRS
You eat bread.

would become

Chlab-úv thn-i.
Bread-ACC eat-PRS.
Bread is eaten.

So because of the accusative marker, there is no possibility for bread to be understood as the grammatical subject. Also, the language is highly nonconfigurational so the word order has absolutely (as of yet) no real meaning.

Though if I want to include an agent in a passive construction, I could add the "instrumental" form of the pronoun/noun back into the sentence:

Chlab-úv thn-i ithe-dh.
Bread-ACC eat-PRS 2SG-INS.
The bread is eaten by you.

Tonight I tried to get nicer verb endings for my conlang Vanga by just connecting the suffixes denoting different things together in a specific order and then let the suffixes gain their final forms partially from phonological constraints when formed, partially from mutations such as allophony, ablaut and analogy, and then applied the modern pronunciation in IPA at the end.

The suffix order is as you can see number + transitivity + person + animacy/activity. The first and second person have no inanimate/stative forms. I hope the reason is obvious. Singular number has a null morpheme (-Ø-), dual has -h- and plural has -n-, for example.

So anyway, what do you guys think of this? Good? Bad? Are the affixes distinctive enough from each other (I'm okay with singular/plural being similar for some roots)? Yay or nay?

_________________
= | = | = | = | = | =
‹› · Ḿḿ Ńń Ĺĺ Śś Źź Ąą Ǫǫ Ųų Æ̨æ̨ Ǽǽ Œ̨œ̨ Œ́œ́ Ɣɣ Y̋y̋ Įį Şş Z̧z̧ θ
Āā Ēē Īī Ōō Ūū ↗ Ṭṭ C̣c̣ Łł Ḍḍ Ṣṣ Ẓẓ Ṇṇ Ŋŋ e˞ o˞ ʷ ʲ ʰ ə

Maybe in the passive construction what you have is a kind of patientive case, rather than an accusative?

_________________
grammaire du jrawélien - textes - lexique - miscellanées

Some syntax I'd like to see what you think of.

1. Distinction between transitivity and intransitivity for semantic disambiguation.

ví-z-; to beat; to hit; to pulsate

vízæuhf; she is hitting (someone/-thing) (beat-SING-3P-TRANS-ANIM)
vízæh; she fights (beat-SING-3P-INTRANS-ANIM)

vízæuhffælji; he is hitting me (beat-SING-3P-TRANS-ANIM-OBJ.1PS)
vízæhhælji; my heart ('he beats [for] me') (beat-SING-3P-INTRANS-ANIM-OBJ.1PS)

2. Inclusiveness and dual agreement despite really 1PS subject.

mi-nd-; to love
-ódo; and; too; also; with; INCLUSIVE
qǽ-; all; every

Qǽwízæhhæljódo mindyhyffælmi.
qǽ-ví<>z-[A>a]h(h)-[A>a]lji-ódo mi<>nd-[A>u]h[A>u]f(f)-[A>a]lmi
I love you with all of my heart.
all-beat-SING-3P-INTRANS-OBJ.1PS-INCL love-DUAL-1P-OBJ.2PS
"All my heart also (along with me), we both (my heart and I) love you."

At least the dual would become more useful than in many other languages.

_________________
= | = | = | = | = | =
‹› · Ḿḿ Ńń Ĺĺ Śś Źź Ąą Ǫǫ Ųų Æ̨æ̨ Ǽǽ Œ̨œ̨ Œ́œ́ Ɣɣ Y̋y̋ Įį Şş Z̧z̧ θ
Āā Ēē Īī Ōō Ūū ↗ Ṭṭ C̣c̣ Łł Ḍḍ Ṣṣ Ẓẓ Ṇṇ Ŋŋ e˞ o˞ ʷ ʲ ʰ ə

'With all my heart' describes the manner (or the instrument) of the verb 'love', right? I know some languages use the comitative case for the instrument, but including it in a dual pronoun looks like a good idea too.
Can you have something like : 'My-pen-and-I, we-both write a letter'?
How would you translate 'My friends and I hunt foxes with rifles and dogs'?

_________________
grammaire du jrawélien - textes - lexique - miscellanées

Yeah, it would be cool to extend it to a common way of doing a comitative construction, as I want to rely on verbs only and getting rid of cases.

I will get back to you with translations later.

_________________
= | = | = | = | = | =
‹› · Ḿḿ Ńń Ĺĺ Śś Źź Ąą Ǫǫ Ųų Æ̨æ̨ Ǽǽ Œ̨œ̨ Œ́œ́ Ɣɣ Y̋y̋ Įį Şş Z̧z̧ θ
Āā Ēē Īī Ōō Ūū ↗ Ṭṭ C̣c̣ Łł Ḍḍ Ṣṣ Ẓẓ Ṇṇ Ŋŋ e˞ o˞ ʷ ʲ ʰ ə

sounds interesting; aye.



I vote Aye!

---------------------

For marking questions, should I keep sentance-final u, or replace it with a particle/suffix?

O falota u.
* pangolin Q.
A pangolin?

U falota u.
* pangolin Q.
Mr. Pangolin?

vs

U falota tzi.
* pangolin Q.
Mr. Pangolin?

vs

U falota-lalu.
* pangolin-Q.
Mr. Pangolin?


* = the start of a clause; clause-initial U is used for people.

Which of the two options for forming desideratives is nicer? 1) Adding a complementizer after a clause and then treating that as the object of a "want" verb OR 2) compounding a verb with a "want" verb?

_________________
Up in blue sky silly blimp goes by
Where it come from where it go
Ziggy-Zaggy it fly high

No.1 is, imho. and neater.

What do you think about expressing negation by reduplication of the verb?
Examples:
Hwi laka.
I want.
Hwi laka laka.
I do not want.

BTW,how to gloss reduplication?

_________________
Ikasmu ati'uki nai uraiur.
Hinai nimuśim naimi nai sasamiur urukani. Śi'ama nai huhumiur na ni'amuśim nai sasamiur.
Pumaki nimuśim śima'a na ami nimuśim ara'a. Hini nihrasum i'aku tumra urukani na nihrasum sanik hraspir.

Ah,thanks.
So it'll be like this.
Hwi laka laka.
hwi laka~laka
1SG want~NEG
I do not want.

Should the Arasamean word for "bear" be ta /tæ/, or ca /ˈhæ/ ?


(a borrowing from the Hawaiian pea)

ca!

I'm afraid I didn't understand your previous question.

_________________
= | = | = | = | = | =
‹› · Ḿḿ Ńń Ĺĺ Śś Źź Ąą Ǫǫ Ųų Æ̨æ̨ Ǽǽ Œ̨œ̨ Œ́œ́ Ɣɣ Y̋y̋ Įį Şş Z̧z̧ θ
Āā Ēē Īī Ōō Ūū ↗ Ṭṭ C̣c̣ Łł Ḍḍ Ṣṣ Ẓẓ Ṇṇ Ŋŋ e˞ o˞ ʷ ʲ ʰ ə

thank you.



summed up, how should I mark questions? with <_u>, with <_tzi>, or with <-lalu>