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

[Arayaz]

I noticed that ŋAħual looks kinda like Nahuatl, and I decided to lean into it a bit.

Nawatl (probably would be nAwatl but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

A potential ŋAħual descendent.

• w, j → v, ɟ ; ħw, ħj → w j
• Coda devoicing (incl. l → ɬ)
• [#, C]NV, VN[#, C], VNV → NṼ, Ṽ, VDNṼ & the nasal's POA depends on following vowel quality: [na], [ɲe], [ɲi], [mʷo], [mʷu] But romanized <n> in all cases. (DN = bm, dn, gŋ etc) ; nasals lost C_C
• s ʃ ɬ → t͡s t͡ʃ t͡ɬ after a vowel
• e → ie ; ă → ɛ̈ ; aː = a

Edit: Flavia noticed the same thing and posted about it before I finished this post, but I promise I thought of it on my own.

[Arayaz]

Hejísas: Shelik Revived
[...]
SCs in the next post.

Ok, I made a few posts in the meantime, but I'm doing SCs now, I promise!

• Stress shift; stress the vowel right before the final consonant
• e u → je, wo
• aj ej → e ; au eu → o ; uj iu → ɨ
• rj → j ; rw → w
• [t k]s → ss
• tj dj kj ɡj sj nj → tʃ dʒ tʃ dʒ ʃ ɲ ; t d k ɡ s n → tʃ dʒ tʃ dʒ ʃ ɲ / _i
• tw dw kw ɡw sw nw → kʷ ɡʷ p b xʷ ŋʷ ; t d k ɡ s n → kʷ ɡʷ p b xʷ ŋʷ / _u
• codas (not incl. first geminate element) lost, leaving vowel length
• k, p, g → h / #_
• j, w lost after consonants

So with the Lexember words, we get words such as:

Spoiler:

*deseguyna → ješegına
*gat → hā
*agret → ajé
*innar → innā
*skentur → ščēkwó
*dabitsuy → dabissı
*gaseksku → hašēpo
*nedsku → ňēspo
*issa → issa
*abridbeseksak → abībešessá
*kidyadur → čijagwó
*adurseni → agwōšeňi
*tedusseni → čegwoššeňi
*tedussenyadur → čegwoššeňagwó
*geysadur → hesagwó
*asauandis → asawājí
*surru → hwowwó
*bedeb → bejé
*yay → ye
*sbur → spō
*garri → hayyi
*naday → nade
*tegarri → čegayyi
*etukri → yekwoči
*tetidak → čečidá
*ikabridsak → ikabissá
*de → je

Thoughts?

[Arayaz]

Hejísas Nominal Morphology

Unlike in Rü’ravesh, Hejísas has lost many of the distinctions made in Ruykkarraber.

The old four-case system collapsed into a two-case system, as seen below:

Originally vowel-final
Nominative ňēspo
Accusative ňēspō
Ergative ňēspō
Absolutive ňēspō

Originally consonant-final
Nominative čijagwō
Accusative čijagworē
Ergative čijagworē
Absolutive čijagworē

The originally consonant-final forms are unpredictable; the loss of coda consonants was certainly within the past two centuries, and analogy may not have leveled out the forms just yet; but certainly in some forms of the language, the above forms of čijagwō would have been replaced via analogy:

Nominative čijagwo
Accusative čijagwō
Ergative čijagwō
Absolutive čijagwō

In any case, the forms of the accusative, ergative, and absolutive have merged. They won't have to be replaced; all that is necessary to fix this is standardized word order, which shall be SOV. The position of adverbs can still flit around depending on importance.

In the plural, the case forms also merge, but due to certain things that happened over the course of the language's history, plural forms are difficult to predict on originally vowel-final forms.

Originally vowel-final (singular: ňēspo)
Nominative ňēskı
Accusative ňēskıı
Ergative ňēskıı
Absolutive ňēskıı

Originally consonant-final (singular: čijagwō)
Nominative čijagwori
Accusative čijagworī
Ergative čijagworī
Absolutive čijagworī

For now, the plural stem will simply be considered separate. Thus most nouns fall into two conjugations: lengthening for case forms and a separate plural stem, and a special case stem that's also used for plurals.

Some irregularities will be described in the next post.

[Arayaz]

Hejísas: Inflectional Irregularities

One place the above system might break down is when the original noun ended with a diphthong.

For example:

rey "silt, soil, sand" → re
reyi "a bunch of silt/soil/sand" → yeyi

Or:

kadeu "peak" → hado
kadeui "peaks" → hajewi

Or:

dabitsuy "bowstring" → dabissı
dabitsuyi "bowstrings" → dabīxwoyi

These will simply become irregular forms; there will be no attempt by the speakers to make a consistent pattern with them, due to their very limited number. (That's not to say that they won't have a pattern to know which is which ─ a final ı, for example, will only occur on these words.)

[Arayaz]

nAwatł Morphology

I am implementing no significant grammatical change in nAwatł.

jɛ-fk
1sg-run
I run

ja-vjakk
1sg-run.PST
I ran

ja-tvak-vjak
1sg-FUT-run
I will run

All verbs have either two or three stems: past, nonpast, and potentially a reduced nonpast.

The noun classes are mostly used in the same ways.

sg/pl
Class 1: [a/ɛ](jj)- / zh[o/va][l/tł]- (humans)
Class 2: yak- / ħo(dn/bm/jn)- (animals)
Class 3: mo(l)- / jɛ(dn/bm/jn)- (food, earth, malleable things, plants)
Class 4: pɛ(ħ)- / jɛ(dn/bm/jn)- (manmade or refined objects)
Class 5: vak- / no plural (reduced or destroyed versions of other things)
Class 6: w(a)- / no plural (pejorative or derogatory)
Class 7: na(l)- / no plural (honorific)
Class 8: [a/ɛ]ħ- / n[a/ɛ][l/tł]- (misc.)

atsɛħ "person" → zhvatłsɛħ "people"
atsɛħ "person" → natsɛħ "great person, respected person"
atsɛħ "person" → watsɛħ "useless person, disrespected person"
atsɛħ "person" → yaksɛħ "someone who is like an animal"
atsɛħ "person" → vaksɛħ "corpse"

[Arayaz]

I'm fixing that nasalization stuff in nĄwatł.

The prestopping of nasals is consistent with the prestopping of fricatives, but prestopping nasals doesn't make sense if the vowels before them are nasalized, since the former suggests a late NOT and the latter an early NOT. So I'm getting rid of the nasalization of vowels before nasals; it'll just be the ones after. Thus they'll also not be lost in codas, but rather, the devoiced nasals will become /p t k/.

[Arayaz]

Hejísas Clauses

Due to the collapse of the case system, the original Ruykkarraber system of plain versus nominalized clauses has been reduced to a distinction only between S-NOM O-OBL ("oblique" being the term I picked for the other case) and S-OBL O-OBL.

Whether this would be preserved is questionable. Especially since the distinction between the two case forms is often very little (vowel length being the normal one), it's much harder now than it was in Ruykkarraber to distinguish between plain and nominalized clauses, which makes the convoluted constructions that Ruykkarraber was fond of somewhat difficult.

So it's possible that nominalization becomes far rarer, and the existing strategies for tense and aspect that use nominalization deemphasize the case shift and emphasize the auxiliary that they use, and eventually, analogy turns even those clauses into S-NOM O-OBL constructions; the oblique case is essentially only an accusative (and prepositional) now, and I'll rename it as such.

However, the case shift on said nominalized verbs would be preserved, since an auxiliary follows them, and the length could just be considered part of the suffix.

To take some examples from my Ruykkarraber thread:

Woya šeyyē ına.
Woya 2.ACC see
Woya sees you.

Woya šeyyē ınākra.
Woya 2.ACC see-FUT
Woya will see you.

Woya šeyyē ınākrı.
Woya 2.ACC see-COND
Woya would have seen you.

Woya šeyyē ınaňī.
Woya 2.ACC see-VOL
Woya wishes to see you.

I may shift these meanings around a bit, too. Perhaps the old volitional and future become an intentional future versus an unintentional future:

Ī ajjī āgaňī.
1sg.NOM tree.branch.ACC drop-FUT.INT
I'll drop the tree branch.

Ā, ī ajjī āgākra.
ugh / 1sg.NOM tree.branch.ACC drop-FUT.UNINT
Ugh, I'm gonna drop the tree branch (e.g. because it's too heavy).

[Arayaz]

What if Ablaut. what then

Some ablaut doodles.

Originally, there would be a three-vowel system of /a i o/. A large consonant inventory would facilitate mostly monosyllabic roots, but derivation would produce multisyllabic words. There is a mostly fusional inflectional paradigm that is mostly regular. Primary stress is on the final vowel of a word, and secondary stress is on the antepenultimate syllable if it is heavy.

gódʲ "tree"
godʲ-ót "trees"
godʲ-íl "the tree"
ˌgodʲ-dʲalá "the trees"

First, /i/ drags forward the next vowel (/a o/ → /ɛ ø/), and /o/ drags back the next vowel (/a i/ → /ʌ ɯ/).

gódʲ "tree"
godʲ-ót "trees"
godʲ-ɯ́l "the tree"
ˌgodʲ-dʲʌlá "the trees"

Now we delete unstressed vowels:

gódʲ "tree"
gdʲót "trees"
gdʲɯ́l "the tree"
godʲdʲlá "the trees"

Then, we shift /a ɛ i o ø ʌ ɯ/ to /eː ej aj uː yː ʌɰ aɰ/ when under primary stress.

gúdʲ "tree"
gdʲút "trees"
gdʲáɰl "the tree"
godʲdʲléː "the trees"

Just an idea.

[Arayaz]

Ablaut Language Continued

I liked that ablaut idea, so I'm going to flesh it out into a new language. This will be spoken somewhere on the southern continent of UC1; I'm not quite sure where, but the language's original homeland will be a wetland environment, comparable to southern Louisiana.

The phonology I have selected for the earliest documented form of the language is as follows:

/p b t d ʈ͡ʂ ɖ͡ȥ tʲ dʲ k ɡ/
/m n₁ n₂/ (see below)
/f s z ʂ ȥ sʲ zʲ x/
/ʋ ɾ ɻ j w/

/a i o/

The distinction between *n₁ and *n₂ is not clear. *n₁ seems to have assimilated in place of articulation to any following segment (including vowels: [na ɲi ŋo]), and been realized purely as nasalization of the previous vowel at the end of a word. Meanwhile, *n₂ has a reflex of [n] before vowels and [l] elsewhere.

In addition, progressive vowel assimilation is in effect: /i/ fronts /a o/ in the next syllable to [ɛ ø], whereas /o/ backs /a i/ in the next syllable to [ʌ ɯ]. This applies right to left, so /okida/ is [okɯdɛ], rather than [okɯda].

Maximal syllable structure is C[-liquid]C[+liquid]VC.

Primary stress falls on the ultimate syllable of a word, including affixes, unless the ultimate syllable is open and the penultimate syllable is closed, in which case primary stress instead falls on the penultimate syllable. The same rule, considering the antepenultimate and fourth-from-last syllables respectively, applies secondary stress. For longer words, the same pattern applies, counting off two-syllable feet and assigning them secondary stress. (However, I doubt this would happen.)

Morphology in the next post.

[Arayaz]

Abisj Morphology

A noun can be pluralized with a suffix -(o)t, or may be turned into a collective with -(ːa)n₂.

godʲ, godʲot, godʲdʲan₂
tree, trees, forest

ʈʂwa, ʈʂwat, ʈʂwan₂
drop of water, drops of water, water

In addition, there is a definite article that is added to the end of a noun. It takes the form -(i)sʲ normally, but on a plural definite noun, rather than -(o)t-isʲ, a single suffix -(o)tʲan₁ is used.

godʲisʲ, godʲotʲan₁, godʲdʲan₂isʲ
the tree, the trees, the forest

ʈʂwasʲ, ʈʂwatʲan₁, ʈʂwan₂isʲ
the drop of water, the drops of water, the water

Verbs inflect for agreement with the number of the subject, but not person; they also mark tense and telicity.

Telicity is only marked on transitive verbs. The following table describes the affixes used for different forms.

Code: Select all

               Past      Present   Future
Intransitive   -(i)ɻ     -         -ʋo
Atelic         -(a)xɻa   -xa       -(a)wo
Telic          -(ːi)ʂ    -(ːi)s    -(ːi)fo

a godot mizʲzʲiʂ
I stabbed the fish.

a godot mizʲaxɻa
I stabbed at the fish.

With a plural subject, the suffix -(j)i is used after the telicity and tense suffixes.

ʂan₁ godot mizʲaxɻaji
We stabbed at the fish.

[Omzinesý]

Telicity is only marked on transitive verbs. The following table describes the affixes used for different forms.

You could be interested in control vs. noncontrol forms in some native American languages.

One emphasizes the subject +agentive +volitional but maybe failed
One emphasizes the object +completed but maybe unintentional

They only appear with transitive (= bivalent) verbs.
Neither of them is the unmarked form.

[Arayaz]

Telicity is only marked on transitive verbs. The following table describes the affixes used for different forms.

You could be interested in control vs. noncontrol forms in some native American languages.

One emphasizes the subject +agentive +volitional but maybe failed
One emphasizes the object +completed but maybe unintentional

They only appear with transitive (= bivalent) verbs.
Neither of them is the unmarked form.

I'm familiar with them; they're found in Klallam (-t control and -nəxʷ noncontrol). I hadn't seen them explained like that before, though; the book wasn't very clear. So thanks for the explanation!

[Arayaz]

Abisj Lexicon

ag vi. to exist
ɖȥiȥ evid. so it seems
n₂ak adv. never
o adv. not
tro vi. to be wrong
xiʋ n. something to do, goal, task

Note to self: V2 word order.

[Arayaz]

Should I post writing here, or keep it conlangs-only?

[Khemehekis]

Should I post writing here, or keep it conlangs-only?

Writing? I say go for it!

[Arayaz]

Should I post writing here, or keep it conlangs-only?

Writing? I say go for it!

All right, if I ever write anything I like enough to post here, I will.

2c2ef0

Edit: This is an exo/engelang I started a while back; I just wanted to move it to this thread.

In 2c2ef0, every root word is a quantity of red light and a quantity of green light. All words are nouns.
44c1- wellbeing
76b4- tree branch

Inverting the red and green light forms a plural.
c144- the wellbeing of multiple people
b476- tree branches

The quantity of blue light signifies definiteness and case.
c14458 caused by these people's wellbeings
76b4a0 a tree branch (phrase head) (going to be mentioned later)

To be more specific, the definiteness is indicated by the first part of the blue-light value:
-f- the one and only (My neighbor)
-a- new information that will be mentioned later (And then I saw a man carrying a gun)
-7- new information that won't be mentioned later, throwaway information (I walked through the forest, and then when I got to the city...)
-5- this; it's immediately obvious due to proximity
-2- not new information

Before I explain case, I have to explain clausal structure. In 2c2ef0, a clause is an assertation of the existence of its head. The head takes -0 as its case marker. The head may be followed by any number of other words modifying it; their cases are simply noting how they are related to the head.
-0 phrase head
-4 head is located at this
-8 head is caused/made by this
-a head is this
-d head is of or part of this
-f head is affected by this

These modifiers may themselves be modified, but there are constraints. When a modifier is to be modified itself, it must first be backed, so that all the other modifiers are in front of it. After that, there must be the resumptive pronoun 4242- (which in practice always takes the form 424220), which is the head of its own phrase. This may be better illustrated by an example:

c9dc0044c15d
end-one.and.only-HEAD happiness-PROX-GEN
The happiness ended.
c9dc0044c15d42422099a9fd
end-one.and.only-HEAD happiness-PROX-GEN RES.PRO-DEF-HEAD 1-one.and.only-GEN
I stopped being happy.

[conlang-creature]

I love this idea.
So, 44c17076b4fd42422099a9fd
means, "my branch is fine (dismissive)"? Obviously very silly but this idea is too cool not to play around with.
Also, can you use -f- with plural nouns?

[Arayaz]

I love this idea.

Thanks! I didn't just have it, of course; I made up its first iteration at the end of last August. It's changed a lot since then, of course.

So, 44c17076b4fd42422099a9fd
means, "my branch is fine (dismissive)"? Obviously very silly but this idea is too cool not to play around with.

Yeah, basically I love that sentence lol.

Neighbor 1: But the branches of your apple tree are laden with blight!
Neighbor 2: My branch is fine!!
(Neighbor 2: And get out of my swamp!!!)

Also, can you use -f- with plural nouns?

Yep.

In fact, you've made me realize I was a bit ambiguous; I used -5- for "my happiness," but that probably should've been -f-, since there's one specific happiness of me. Then again, this is essentially identical to the use of the proper article in the Haesičáéyae languages, so perhaps I should shoot for diversity and keep -5- here. I'll think on that!

[Arayaz]

Spoiler:

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I realized that Ruykkarraber's name is invalid ─ it should be Ruykkarrasber. Then I realized that I've been inconsistent overall with forming compounds, and I considered scrapping Ruykkarraber (and with it, Rü’ravesh and Hejísas), which could be a good idea anyway, since since I made them so long ago, they feel a bit clumsy now.

But then again, do I want to scrap Ruykkarraber? It's been with me for so long, I mean. I started it on November 26 ─ 156 days ago. Aside from 2c2ef0, which I don't really count due to its dormancy and reworking, Ruykkarraber is my oldest language. It holds memories; it's like a dusty book on my highest shelf. I find myself attached to it, y'know?

I've always been a scrapper, according to the KCT. With this thread, I started to lose that a bit, moving more into the filler category. But old habits die hard, I suppose. It's infinitely easier to destroy than to create, as they say ... it's easier, in my mind, to get rid of the whole language than to retool it to fix the issue. And once I see one error, all the other, smaller things jump out at me. Like my clumsy reduction in the auxiliaries, my inconsistent stress-based things ...

Unlike languages I've killed before, I still like Ruykkarraber. So am I changing, as a person? Can an old dog truly learn new tricks? Or am I blinded by time to its faults? I had a very different mindset a hundred and fifty-six days ago; I was a very different conlanger, a very different person. A language I make today would be much better than a language I made then, Ruykkarraber included. But ... Ruykkarraber is still a nice language, isn't it? In some ways, at least.

So perhaps I should keep Ruykkarraber.

And yet still, its faults glare back at me. Should I, then, retool it? Remake it? Perhaps I'm instead going to be a perfectionist in the KCT. I've already had some tendencies of theirs; I'd fit right in. Or should I throw Ruykkarraber into the pile with Shelik and Anopí and Laakitlantu, of "I loved you, but you couldn't last"? Then turn back to Makihip and ŋAħual and nĄwatł and Abisj and fill out this continent with them all instead? Or should I give up on this whole worldbuilding thing? I've never been good at culture-building; is it even worth it to try?

I'll never be satisfied with anything, will I? Perhaps I'll never be able to settle down with anything. Perhaps all of my languages will be replaced, over and over again, until all that's left is the Areyaxi languages that I hate but I'm stuck with, and whichever latest project I'll kill tomorrow. It was rare before that I would keep something for as long as I did Ruykkarraber. So when I kill that, what becomes of it all? It's a difficult decision to throw away something so rare as a language I was able to keep for so long ...

I'll never be satisfied, and look where Hamilton wound up ...

Or should I accept how I am? The goal of this all is simply fulfillment and enjoyment, which I can find anyway no matter if I kill the language afterward ... or can I? I believe I can, but who knows? Perhaps this brief time of linguistic stability was why I've felt happier. Maybe getting rid of the work I've done will cast me back into the pit of depression. I doubt that that's all there was to my sadness, but what if it contributed to it?

Are my languages my anchor to reality? For many artists, that's the role their creations serve for them ... is it worth it to try to find out? I know which things and people I couldn't live without ... and conlanging certainly is among those ranks, but is a specific language among them? Not just any language, but Ruykkarraber? Can I truly kill Ruykkarraber, when everywhere I go, I see its influence?

There are conlangers I know who are far more skilled than I on this board. I aspire to create something like they could; will I ever be able to achieve my dreams if I kill anything after a long enough period of time? Or is that the key to improvement? In the past I've thought it may have been; a continuous uphill climb fueled by the replacement of anything inadequate, like natural selection. But then, what if the fact that I've stopped growing to hate languages as quickly is just a sign that I've peaked, that I'm no longer improving enough to notice anything wrong? What if, by scrapping Ruykkarraber, I'm finally continuing the climb?

Should I even post this? It's not like it's relevant to any of my work. I could just say "I killed Ruykkarraber" and be done with it; what matters about this post was the process of writing it; I've learned things about myself from doing so, but wandering introspection like this post is hardly suitable for the board. I don't want to be spamming or flooding anything, even if this is my own personal thread ...

I killed Ruykkarraber; I broke the anchor's chain; whether I am sailing into better skies or drifting into the rocks of the shore, I don't know.

And while I'm at it, I'll kill Makihip and ŋAħual and nĄwatł. They're not well-organized, and doubtless many flaws have slipped through the cracks; and should I keep Abisj too? Is it worth it? I might as well set myself fully on my way to wherever I'll end up, but Abisj isn't so bad. I'll give it another day of life, perhaps; I'll let it see the sun set over the sail as I see where it is I'm heading now that I'm finally adrift and free.

A toast to you all, to the past, and to the future!

tldr: I killed them all

[Khemehekis]

Just wow.

I'm going to repeat what I, as an anthropologist of scrappers and other conlanging types, said in March: It's in the nature of the scrapper to find that one fatal flaw with each of his/her languages, be it a logistical, proof-of-concept, or strictly aesthetic flaw.

Maybe Ruykkarraber can be reincarnated as Ruykkarrasber.

I'll also quote from the KCT's official description of scrappers: "Like the lady who dates twenty different guys before making one lucky man her husband, scrappers want to settle down one day with one or more great conlangs, and become loyalists or fillers or maybe even circumnavigators. But for now, it's just trial-and-error."