How to make a non-concatenative language
- Artaxes
- sinic
- Posts: 416
- Joined: 19 Aug 2010 00:39
- Location: The Holy Eastern Empire of the Old Traditions
- Contact:
How to make a non-concatenative language
Like in title; how to make something in this style. I was experimenting with ablaut, but I am not satisfied. Are there another methods ?
- k1234567890y
- mayan
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
- Contact:
Re: How to make a non-concatenative language
I have done like three non-concatenative languages with Semitic-like roots as of now...
Phonologically: Ablaut + elision + vowel quality change, and probably open syllable lengthening at some point
Also, you might need to have a regular stress position in the pre-non-concatenative proto-language
Morphologically: there might be something similar to the phrasal verbs in the pre-non-concatenative languages, think of the plural forms of English words like "runner-up", whose plural form is "runners-up".
Maybe I should show you the evolution of one of my non-concatenative langs?
Some examples of the evolution of the verb patterns, this is taken from my most recent non-concatenative language:
relevant sound changes behind the evolution of the patterns:
Phonologically: Ablaut + elision + vowel quality change, and probably open syllable lengthening at some point
Also, you might need to have a regular stress position in the pre-non-concatenative proto-language
Morphologically: there might be something similar to the phrasal verbs in the pre-non-concatenative languages, think of the plural forms of English words like "runner-up", whose plural form is "runners-up".
Maybe I should show you the evolution of one of my non-concatenative langs?
Some examples of the evolution of the verb patterns, this is taken from my most recent non-concatenative language:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Re: How to make a non-concatenative language
I'd mostly agree with k1234567890y, but I think it's also worth pointing out that languages that frequently use nonconcatenative morphology frequently use concatenative morphology as well, it's just that nonconcatenative morphology plays a large role in those languages.
If you take a look at the first eight 3rd person perfect forms of the root K-T-B in Arabic, you'll see that four of them employ the use of a prefix that isn't used in any of the other forms ('a-, ta-, i-, in-) alongside vowel changes and infixes that similarly don't appear in other prefixed forms. The same is more or less true of the respective imperfect forms as well. Differences in person and number in verbs are similarly handled by means of affixes alongside changes in the root, rather than purely changes in the root.
Ahzoh's Vrkhazhian eventually fell on this balance quite well, in my opinion. The presentation of Arabic, Hebrew and even PIE's ablaut, often over-represent the use of changes in the root as a productive process for changing grammatical meaning, but that same process very often occurs alongside what you might consider more "typical" morphology, e.g. prefixes and suffixes. The two systems combine together in a sort of semi-redundant way. The root change indicates a grammatical change, but the affixes that occur alongside those root changes usually only occur with certain root changes, so if you mishear a change in the root the affix helps fill in the gaps and vice versa, perhaps.
For me, a "good" non-concatenative language is one that doesn't burden itself with an overabundance of root changes, but finds a balance between root changes and affix use.
If you take a look at the first eight 3rd person perfect forms of the root K-T-B in Arabic, you'll see that four of them employ the use of a prefix that isn't used in any of the other forms ('a-, ta-, i-, in-) alongside vowel changes and infixes that similarly don't appear in other prefixed forms. The same is more or less true of the respective imperfect forms as well. Differences in person and number in verbs are similarly handled by means of affixes alongside changes in the root, rather than purely changes in the root.
Ahzoh's Vrkhazhian eventually fell on this balance quite well, in my opinion. The presentation of Arabic, Hebrew and even PIE's ablaut, often over-represent the use of changes in the root as a productive process for changing grammatical meaning, but that same process very often occurs alongside what you might consider more "typical" morphology, e.g. prefixes and suffixes. The two systems combine together in a sort of semi-redundant way. The root change indicates a grammatical change, but the affixes that occur alongside those root changes usually only occur with certain root changes, so if you mishear a change in the root the affix helps fill in the gaps and vice versa, perhaps.
For me, a "good" non-concatenative language is one that doesn't burden itself with an overabundance of root changes, but finds a balance between root changes and affix use.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
- k1234567890y
- mayan
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
- Contact:
Re: How to make a non-concatenative language
Speaking of this, I actually have concatenative morphologies in them as well.sangi39 wrote:I'd mostly agree with k1234567890y, but I think it's also worth pointing out that languages that frequently use nonconcatenative morphology frequently use concatenative morphology as well, it's just that nonconcatenative morphology plays a large role in those languages.
If you take a look at the first eight 3rd person perfect forms of the root K-T-B in Arabic, you'll see that four of them employ the use of a prefix that isn't used in any of the other forms ('a-, ta-, i-, in-) alongside vowel changes and infixes that similarly don't appear in other prefixed forms. The same is more or less true of the respective imperfect forms as well. Differences in person and number in verbs are similarly handled by means of affixes alongside changes in the root, rather than purely changes in the root.
Ahzoh's Vrkhazhian eventually fell on this balance quite well, in my opinion. The presentation of Arabic, Hebrew and even PIE's ablaut, often over-represent the use of changes in the root as a productive process for changing grammatical meaning, but that same process very often occurs alongside what you might consider more "typical" morphology, e.g. prefixes and suffixes. The two systems combine together in a sort of semi-redundant way. The root change indicates a grammatical change, but the affixes that occur alongside those root changes usually only occur with certain root changes, so if you mishear a change in the root the affix helps fill in the gaps and vice versa, perhaps.
For me, a "good" non-concatenative language is one that doesn't burden itself with an overabundance of root changes, but finds a balance between root changes and affix use.
Also, speaking of nonconcatenative morphology, in my opinion, it actually shows up in Slavic languages(and Germanic languages) to a limited degree as well, for example, the genetive plural form of the Polish word macek is macka(note the <e> in the two forms).
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Re: How to make a non-concatenative language
It's hard. Very hard. I wouldn't recommend it for a beginner, especially since many conlangers, even venerable ones, have really skewed/incorrect views on how Semitic tri-literal roots actually work.
However, one thing I do recommend is having a proto-language which is not non-concatenative and deriving the language from that. You can derive the root changes through things like collapsing unstressed vowels, umlauting vowels, changing the values of unstressed and stressed vowels differently, etc. That's one option, and one I'm trying (albeit with little success).
However, one thing I do recommend is having a proto-language which is not non-concatenative and deriving the language from that. You can derive the root changes through things like collapsing unstressed vowels, umlauting vowels, changing the values of unstressed and stressed vowels differently, etc. That's one option, and one I'm trying (albeit with little success).
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S
- Artaxes
- sinic
- Posts: 416
- Joined: 19 Aug 2010 00:39
- Location: The Holy Eastern Empire of the Old Traditions
- Contact:
Re: How to make a non-concatenative language
Thank you, friends ! Your experience is very important for me.
My ablauting language was published here, but as I say, I'm not satisfied, but I would want to come back to this project.
My ablauting language was published here, but as I say, I'm not satisfied, but I would want to come back to this project.
- gestaltist
- mayan
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23
Re: How to make a non-concatenative language
It's the other way around. "macek" is the GEN plural, and "macka" is NOM singular. Slavic languages have a lot of weird reflexes like this due to the whole yer thing.k1234567890y wrote: Also, speaking of nonconcatenative morphology, in my opinion, it actually shows up in Slavic languages(and Germanic languages) to a limited degree as well, for example, the genetive plural form of the Polish word macek is macka(note the <e> in the two forms).
- k1234567890y
- mayan
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
- Contact:
Re: How to make a non-concatenative language
sorry my wronggestaltist wrote:It's the other way around. "macek" is the GEN plural, and "macka" is NOM singular. Slavic languages have a lot of weird reflexes like this due to the whole yer thing.k1234567890y wrote: Also, speaking of nonconcatenative morphology, in my opinion, it actually shows up in Slavic languages(and Germanic languages) to a limited degree as well, for example, the genetive plural form of the Polish word macek is macka(note the <e> in the two forms).
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.