(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2020]

[CarsonDaConlanger]

What case would a noun be in in an ergative language when in a title(not in a full sentence)?

I.E: The book of the world.

What case should I put book in?

[Zekoslav]

Considering that in ergative languages, absolutive is generally the unmarked case, I'd guess titles would be in the absolutive. Although, it might depend on how your conculture (if relevant) comes up with titles - I wish I knew more about that in other real-world cultures (I still think the unmarked case should be the default)!

[CarsonDaConlanger]

Considering that in ergative languages, absolutive is generally the unmarked case, I'd guess titles would be in the absolutive. Although, it might depend on how your conculture (if relevant) comes up with titles - I wish I knew more about that in other real-world cultures (I still think the unmarked case should be the default)!

Thanks!

[Salmoneus]

The unmarked case is obviously most natural as a default; however, I'd begin by question your assumptions. What is a "title", and why do your people have them? For instance, book titles that just explain what the book is about may well use the dative or the like ("[on/about] the origin-DAT of species").

If the title functions as a sort of proferative deictic, or is mainly found in lists, there may be particular constructions associated with those procedures.

[Dormouse559]

There are also title formulas based on clauses. Chapter titles in older books occasionally take the form: "In which [such-and-such happens]"

[Creyeditor]

The unmarked case is obviously most natural as a default; however, I'd begin by question your assumptions. What is a "title", and why do your people have them? For instance, book titles that just explain what the book is about may well use the dative or the like ("[on/about] the origin-DAT of species").

If the title functions as a sort of proferative deictic, or is mainly found in lists, there may be particular constructions associated with those procedures.

Just wanted to add, that many older Geman titles (in Latin obviously ) were genitive case constructions (kind of), because they started with de.

[CarsonDaConlanger]

The unmarked case is obviously most natural as a default; however, I'd begin by question your assumptions. What is a "title", and why do your people have them? For instance, book titles that just explain what the book is about may well use the dative or the like ("[on/about] the origin-DAT of species").

If the title functions as a sort of proferative deictic, or is mainly found in lists, there may be particular constructions associated with those procedures.

Just wanted to add, that many older Geman titles (in Latin obviously ) were genitive case constructions (kind of), because they started with de.

That actually might work well, since I use postpositions for cases, so I can just put it after the whole name.

[Omzinesý]

I'm making a Germanic lang.

It has sound changes
/s/ -> /ʃ/
/θ/ -> /s/

I'd like to preserve <s> as the letter for /ʃ/. How could /s/ be written? I don't like <þ>.

[zyma]

<sz>.

[Dormouse559]

<ß>.

Ess-zed
Eszett
Same diff

[Salmoneus]

Depends where it's spoken! And what other letters are used, and how!

Options include s-cedilla, s-acute, s-dot or more fancifully s-tilde; or c, z, q or x; or ts, or ds, or th; or ss, sc, sz, sth, ths, zs or cs; or c-acute, c-dot, c-cedilla; or d, or d-bar or eth or sd, or....

[Porphyrogenitos]

Also, it depends on when the sound change happened - before or after the orthography was established. If the orthography was established before the sound change, it would likely just keep using the same symbols as before, but with the shifted sound values. So we might see:

þ = [θ]
s = [s]

s θ > ʃ s

þ = [s]
s = [ʃ]

Considering a broad European context, and without knowing any other information about the language or orthography, I'd say that <z> and <ç> are the most likely representations for a [θ] that later became [s]

[Odkidstr]

Hopefully this makes sense (and sorry if my terminology is off):

I'm wondering what languages do when quoting a person in writing or relaying what someone has said. For instance, in English you can say: "Eat this," said the man vs "Eat this," the man said vs The man said "eat this." If I'm understanding correctly, the quote itself as a clause would be the object of the verb "to say." In English, it appears that we typically front the quote so that the first two examples are more common than the latter, and it seems that word order can vary quite a bit too. How do other languages handle this? Is it typical to front the quote for a verb such as "say" in languages, or does it normally occur in-situ?

Also another question, this time about plural marking. If a language has suffixing case, it is normal for the plural suffix to come before the case suffix, correct? Or is it also possible for the suffix to be case-plural marking? I am aware of fusion based markings too, but that's not what I'm looking for. Would a postposition for plural marking seem odd if case was suffixed to the noun? Aside from vowel change, adpositions, and affixes, are there any unique or uncommon ways to mark plurality?

[Pabappa]

It would be odd for a plural marker to appear after a case marker, yes. Maybe the morpheme that becomes the plural marker can itself have different forms for different cases, though you'd said you didn't want fusion and that setup would likely cause fusion.

[Omzinesý]

Also, it depends on when the sound change happened - before or after the orthography was established. If the orthography was established before the sound change, it would likely just keep using the same symbols as before, but with the shifted sound values. So we might see:

þ = [θ]
s =

s θ > ʃ s

þ =
s = [ʃ]

Considering a broad European context, and without knowing any other information about the language or orthography, I'd say that <z> and <ç> are the most likely representations for a [θ] that later became

I always forget there is <ç> for <c> before back vowels.
But if /s/ doesn't derive from /k/ they are a bit odd. Of course the orthography can just mirror those of other languages.

[Zekoslav]

Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.

[Omzinesý]

Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.

Was German /ts/ <z> really a sibilant in some state of the language? Or do I misunderstood you.

[holbuzvala]

Why is it that in French, most adjectives follow nouns, but (what I would describe as) 'generic' adjectives preceed the nouns they describe?

[Pabappa]

Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.

Was German /ts/ <z> really a sibilant in some state of the language? Or do I misunderstood you.

I think the spelling has changed. Plain <z> was a fricative, <zz> was an affricate, and much of what is <tz> today was <zz> then.apparently the spelling was just loose .... They used z for both fricatives and affricates, both single and double.

[Omzinesý]

Old High German used <z> to represent the laminal /s/ derived from PG. *t, while using <s> to represent the apical /s̺/ derived from PG. *s, which later becomes /ʃ/ in word-initial consonant clusters. That could be used as a precedent for writing /s/, /ʃ/ as <z>, <s>, if your orthography was established after the chain shift.

Was German /ts/ <z> really a sibilant in some state of the language? Or do I misunderstood you.

I think the spelling has changed. Plain <z> was a fricative, <zz> was an affricate, and much of what is <tz> today was <zz> then.apparently the spelling was just loose .... They used z for both fricatives and affricates, both single and double.

OK, now I see. You mean inter-vocally.
Swedish katt German Katze
Swedish fatta German fassen
Swedish heta German heißen