New CBB

Can I have /s z ʃ t͡s t͡ʃ/ without /ʒ d͡ʒ/?
What is the better word for 2SG pronoun:<txín> or <co>

<txín>, definately.

Sure, why not? A phonology doesn't have to be perfectly symmetrical.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS

I've been wondering recently whether the current version of Kantaranyan is a bit too conservative for something that's supposed to be an international trading language in the continent it's from. Consequently I've been thinking of:

-Changing the phonological history a bit so it's a little less conservative (it's currently probably the most phonologically conservative language within its family)

and/or

-Modify the grammar a bit so that the verb system has less infixes and consonant alternations, which would probably be difficult for learners of Kantaranyan as a second language to pick up.

An alternative to the second one would perhaps be to add the option to use an auxiliary verb instead of inflecting the main verb, I suppose.

Should I do either of these things?

_________________
Languages!
Native: Proficient: Decent: Have dabbled in:

I think you should make Kantaranyan more phonologically innovative.
It'll be good to regularize position of infixes and simplify the consonant alterations.

---

In Catlalicút all verbs are ditransitive per default and are made monotransitive or intransitive by affixes.To keep that or not?

seconding this. maybe some back formation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-formation



keep

Should I shift the words for 'elements' (water, air, fire, earth, life, perhaps some more) semantically, to mean instead water-bearer, fire-bearer, earth-bearer/farmer, etc.; and from there have a more person-focused etymology, while forming retronyms for the 'elements'?

Should I get rid of tone in Keoriki? It's fairly marginal anyway; high tone occurs about 75% of the time, but I fear Keoriki will lose much of its uniqueness if I kill it.

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

Yes. There are natlangs like that.



Sure.
OTOH why four elements (but I see you have "life" as a quintessence), and why those four?
Why not water, air, fire, metal, wood?
Maybe add "flesh"; maybe add "space" or "distance"?
And would a farmer be an earth-bearer, or an earth-worker?
What's a life-bearer? Would that be "female entity"?



Have you tried to expand the role of low tone? If low tone happens say 43% of the time instead of 25%, it would be a lot more balanced --- right?

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

The idea of the elements does not correspond directly to those terms, and include many things elsewise. Water is really "liquid", and is closely related to the sweeping motions used in the proto-lang, which was completely gestural; it is often used as a reference for direction (e.g. "toward this lake/river"). The "liquid" concept continues to cover coldness, darkness, evils and 'anti-civilization' in general; it is- although this is not a reason for it being a 'basic' element- seen as symbolic that humans must 'darken' or 'uncleanse' their souls by drinking water, and much theology is devoted to how to work toward purity, despite consumption of evil.
Air and 'earth' are essentially up and down, air is seen as containing all that exists, while earth is seen as forming all that exists; wood, and some plants, are considered to be "extensions" of the earth, much like mountains which are shaped differently, however 'earth' or 'ground' is seen actually as the living remains of one of the pantheon of gods, and as such things like "soil", "wood", and "metal" are all seen as features of the body. (On a side note, 'metal', being generally cold and dark after forging, can be described as "watery earth-stuff", and the con-people see it as a service to their god to take the 'evil' out of his body; as an additional result of this practice, leaching and other forms of bloodletting by other animals is considered a way to cleanse oneself of evil.) Meanwhile, air is seen as a sort of multi-looped, multi-layered screen, on which the earth/god "rolls", causing the sun and moon to pass, stars to pass, clouds to pass, and wind to pass. Things moving at different speeds have their own 'layer', and the whole system is thought to repeat at different intervals, hence the 'loops'. Earth is roughly likened to gestures used in ordering people in the proto-lang, while air is related to many of the more subtle gestures.
Fire is thought of as a loose opposite to water, as fire is seen as a a 'divine gift', and is used frequently in religious ceremonies (cremation is pretty much the only way to bury the dead, as it 'obliterates' all 'evil' left in an individual by water consumption). It encompasses the concepts of civilization, home, warmth, some emotions and other abstract concepts, war, and technology. In the proto-lang, "fire" encompasses nearly all abstract gestures, including acting and dance.
Life is the only one which is pretty self explanatory; it's mostly made up of words for people and things people do. Basically any concept, including abstract concepts, which don't fit in with other categories are dumped here.

As for the semantic shift, it would be mostly toward any occupation associated closely with the element, e.g. water-bearer is any low-class "untouchable" type who creates trenches, aqueducts, cisterns, wells, etc., as well as merchants; air-bearer is any "generic worker", such as a manufacturer; fire-bearer is a priest or warrior; earth-bearer is actually earth-worker, as was said, in that they farm, or mine; life-bearer or life-worker might be more along the lines of a hunter or animal farmer (although the language has no problem allowing multiple meanings the same word, so a female or, more specifically, a pregnant female may easily be referenced by the same word).

That said, things that are elementary, like wood, metal, food, and possibly any other combination of those listed would probably be "secondary" elements, and as s uch could have a similar semantic shift.

Should I make the script for Kàmo an abugida?

Go for it. If it ends up not feeling right, then add whatever it needs until it does; worry about the classification later. That's what I did

Theta wrote: Should I make the script for Kàmo an abugida?

Depends on the syllable structure of Kàmo. I will never make an usable abugida for Séprthn because it has (C)(C)(C)N(C)(C) syllable structure.

Have you tried to expand the role of low tone? If low tone happens say 43% of the time instead of 25%, it would be a lot more balanced --- right?[/quote]
Well, I do like the imbalance. I'm considering getting rid of it because I've been bad about putting it my dictionary.

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

Never let laziness get in the way of a good idea!

_________________
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.

Should I have animacy-based word order like Navajo, where the most animate noun must always come at the beginning of a clause?

_________________
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously

Why not?
Some conlang should be like Navajo; and your conlang should be like some natlang.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

Should I use [ʀ͡r] as a phoneme? I recently discovered I could pronounce it and was tempted to put it into a conlang even though it doesn't exist in any natlang that I'm aware of.

Wow, I just tried pronouncing that, and it sounds awesome. Move along, [ɮ], [ʀ͡r] is now my new favourite phoneme. And yes, you should use it.

_________________
Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. So study hard and be evil!

I think I made a homonym...should I keep both of these?:

ja [ʒæ] = die
ja [ʒæ] = whale

(the first one I coined today in the Translation folder - about bears. the second one, I had in my nonuploaded page of notes; part of the compound for "far")