Ueuf Aelfi

[reizoukin]

I've been debating whether or not to post this conlang or not. It's not perfect, but I think it's better than all the other ones I've scrapped, and I'm using it for my NaNoWriMo novel.

Phonology:

Spoiler:

CONSONANTS
Nasals: /m n nʲ ŋ/ <m n nj ng>
Stops: /p b t d tʲ dʲ k g/ <p b t d tj dj k g>
Fricatives: /ɸ s sʲ x/ <f s sj h>
Approximants: /l lʲ w/ <l lj w>

VOWELS:
/i ɛ a u o ɒ/ <i e a u o ar>
/i: ɛ: a: u: o: ɒ/ <ii ee aa uu oo arr>

ALLOPHONY:
/i/ followed by another vowel is realized as [j].
/u/ and /o/ followed by another vowel are realized as [w].
/ai au ao/ become corresponding dipthongs.
/aɛ/ becomes [a:].
/aɒ/ becomes [ao].
/nʲ ɸ tʲ dʲ sʲ lʲ x/ are in free variation with [ɲ f t͡ʃ~c d͡ʒ~ɟ ʃ~ç ʎ~j χ~h].
Unvoiced consonants become voiced after a voiced plosive, a nasal, at the end of a word or between vowels.
Voiced consonants become unvoiced after an unvoiced consonant.
/j/ is unpronounced after a palatal or palatalized consonant.

The phonotactics are a little ambiguous. I didn't make them perfect, per se; I just made a setting on Awkwords and I've been using that to make words. So here's that:

Spoiler:

V: a/i/u/e/o/ar
C: m/n/nj/ng/p/b/t/d/tj/dj/k/g/w
S: h/l/lj/
F: f/s/sj

[(C/CS/CF/F/S/FS)V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)][V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)][V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)]

WORD ORDER:

Spoiler:

SVO
Adjective-Noun, Adverb-Verb, PrepositionalPhrase-Noun.

Pronouns:

Spoiler:

(slang forms in parentheses)
1PS-Slaua (Aua)
1PD-Slaufiu
1PP-Slauars (Ault)
2PS-Oftjae (Jae)
2PD-Oftjafiu
2PP-Oftjars (Jalt)
3PS-Haolgu (Gu)
3PD-Haolgfiu
3PP-Haolgars (Gult)

Articles:

Spoiler:

Here-Auilf
There-Esisi
This-Emuu
That-Oinji
The-Mu
A-I

In slang, these are often added to the beginning of the noun.

Emuu arias "This star"
Oinji arias "That star"
Mu arias "The star"
I ariaz "A star"

Stress:

Spoiler:

Stress occurs on the last long vowel. If there is no long vowel, it is on the final syllable.
iljmiift [iljm'i:ɸt]
arsute [ɒzud'ɛ]

Nouns:

Spoiler:

Nouns are marked for genitive on the possessor (-lar), and the vocative (pfar-). Other cases are recognized through position in a sentence.

Slaualar aelfi. "My tongue."
Pfarmiauh! "Water!"

Plurality is marked with -lt (or -ilt in some cases).
mfepari "god" mfeparilt "gods".

To say a noun is related to a verb (work > worker), add -lnj or -olnj to the verb root.

oeikolnj "lover"
nekolnj "creater"

Adjectives/Adverbs:

Spoiler:

Adjectives are only marked if they derive from a noun, where they are created by the suffix -aeo. Adverbs are marked with the suffix -ob if they derive from a noun or adjective.

Aiisjaeo "small"
Pfarlpumob "suddenly, quickly"

Verbs:

Spoiler:

Marked with -ift in the infinitive, from iljmiift "action", or -ofp, from uaofp "occurrence". Verbs inflect according to number and mood. It's possible they once conjugated to other forms, but do no longer. When verbs are inflected, the -ift or -ofp is removed.

The following table expresses the verbs earift "to place (atop)" and nekoofp "to create".

[[I couldn't copy the table straight from textedit, So I'll get that up later.]]

Nekodfua i faareh. "Create a fire."
Mfepari nekoljfua iae slaua i faareh. "God, please create a fire for me."
Haolgu eartfua auilf i faareh. "I wish he would place a fire here."
Haolgu eargnua auilf i faareh. "It's unlikely he'll place a fire here."

Tense is shown by adverbs.
(slang in parentheses)
Past: ilnaraob (aob)
Present: NO PARTICLE
Near Future: aefufob (ufob)
Future: oelnifob (ifob)

Haolgu ilnaraob eargngua i faareh. "He created a fire."

Negation is marked by the adverb msaiasob (iasob).

"Haolgu msaiasob ilnaraob eargngua i faareh. (Gu iasob aob eargngua ifaareh,.) "He did not create a fire."

Examples:

Spoiler:

(Slang in parentheses)

"We did not eat the sauce"
Slauars msaiasob ilnaraob ohabdnjua mu uweuhaeo miauh. (Slault iasob aob ohabdnjua muweuh miauh.)

"All roads lead to Rome"
Uees karaar fanargmua Lom.

Is the phonology realistic? Is the allophony realistic? Is the orthography realistic? Is the sentence structure realistic? And the verbs? That's what I'm asking. I like it; it's a lot better than my previous scraps. But I know it might not be all that wonderful, and I know there are ways to improve it.

[Micamo]

Aua loof emuu konleing!

(My apologies for the cheesy borrowings.)

I don't know enough about linguistics to judge any of the "realism" here but I must ask, why are the articles in the pronoun section?

[reizoukin]

Aua loof emuu konleing!

(My apologies for the cheesy borrowings.)

I don't know enough about linguistics to judge any of the "realism" here but I must ask, why are the articles in the pronoun section?

I got the Aua, emuu, and konleing, but the loof escapes me. :P

And to answer your question, that was a mistake. Oops. Excuse me while I go edit that. :P

[Micamo]

Aua loof emuu konleing!

(My apologies for the cheesy borrowings.)

I don't know enough about linguistics to judge any of the "realism" here but I must ask, why are the articles in the pronoun section?

I got the Aua, emuu, and konleing, but the loof escapes me. :P

And to answer your question, that was a mistake. Oops. Excuse me while I go edit that. :P

Supposed to be "love." Aelfi (is that the working name?) doesn't have /v/ and I thought I'd be creative with the borrowing.

[reizoukin]

Supposed to be "love." Aelfi (is that the working name?) doesn't have /v/ and I thought I'd be creative with the borrowing.

Ah, I see. :P

Technically, you had that right. Loof would be pronounced [lo:v], because the /f/ is word-final. However, the correct way to say "I love" is Slaua oeikodnjua / Aua oeikodnjua. Conlang would be nekoaeoaelfi (We'll use aelfi, the word for language). So,

Slaua/Aua oeikodnjua emuu aelfi! "I love this language!"
[slauwa wɛigodnʲwa ɛmu: a:lɸi]

[Micamo]

Supposed to be "love." Aelfi (is that the working name?) doesn't have /v/ and I thought I'd be creative with the borrowing.

Ah, I see. :P

Technically, you had that right. Loof would be pronounced [lo:v], because the /f/ is word-final. However, the correct way to say "I love" is Slaua oeikodnjua / Aua oeikodnjua. Conlang would be nekoaeoaelfi (We'll use aelfi, the word for language). So,

Slaua/Aua oeikodnjua emuu aelfi! "I love this language!"
[slauwa wɛigodnʲwa ɛmu: a:lɸi]

I pronounce love as [lVv] so I was thinking a more accurate borrowing of this would be larrf.

Oeikodnjua? Quite a long word for such a common concept...

[reizoukin]

I pronounce love as [lVv] so I was thinking a more accurate borrowing of this would be larrf.

Oeikodnjua? Quite a long word for such a common concept...

It is quite a long word. I'm still working out the kinks of the inflection. It's more difficult than you'd think. The ending -dnjua is the singular definite ending.

I may keep the endings as they are, and develop the slang endings to be different. But who knows?

[Micamo]

It's more difficult than you'd think.

I know all too well the horrors of working with inflection. There's a reason I only make (mostly) analytic languages.

[reizoukin]

It's more difficult than you'd think.

I know all too well the horrors of working with inflection. There's a reason I only make (mostly) analytic languages.

Indeed. But I like inflection.

Current (very, very messy) inflection system, with overstandardized endings.



I want to change it and make each ending more unique, but I don't know how to do that correctly.

[Micamo]

You have ten vowels and I dunno how many diphthongs, triphthongs, and possible codas. You don't have to make every ending several syllables long. Put that vowel system of yours to work!

[reizoukin]

You have ten vowels and I dunno how many diphthongs, triphthongs, and possible codas. You don't have to make every ending several syllables long. Put that vowel system of yours to work!

That's an incredibly good point, with no good excuse.

Thanks, I'll start working on that as soon as I find the time.

[Micamo]

By the way, taking a look at your phonotactics...

[(C/CS/CF/F/S/FS)V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)][V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)][V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)]

The syllable structure can be reduced to [(C(F/S)/(F)(S))V((S)(F)(C))]. But this will mess with your output by changing the probabilities of occurrence.

[reizoukin]

By the way, taking a look at your phonotactics...

[(C/CS/CF/F/S/FS)V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)][V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)][V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)]

The syllable structure can be reduced to [(C(F/S)/(F)(S))V((S)(F)(C))]. But this will mess with your output by changing the probabilities of occurrence.

Wow. That looks...completely correct. Thanks. I think I'm going to stick with my own, though...it's more of a "word" structure than a syllable structure, which lets awkwords do most of the work. I get to sit on my lazy butt. ;)

Here's the new verb table; is it more realistic? Are the conjugations too dissimilar?

I kept all the "definite" the same. The definite is the most commonly used conjugation, for regular statements and such.

Using the new system:
Slaua oeik oftjae. (Aua oeik jae.)
"I love you."
Slaua oeikood oftjae. (Aua oeikood jae.)
"It's likely that I love you/I think I love you."
Slaua oelnifob oeikoge oftjae. (Aua ifob oeikoge jae.)
"It's impossible that I will love you/I will not love you."
Usjing!
"Rise!"
Ohabote oinji gatjoi.
"Do not eat that sugar."

[Micamo]

By the way, taking a look at your phonotactics...

[(C/CS/CF/F/S/FS)V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)][V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)][V(SC/FC/SFC/S/F/SF/C)]

The syllable structure can be reduced to [(C(F/S)/(F)(S))V((S)(F)(C))]. But this will mess with your output by changing the probabilities of occurrence.

Wow. That looks...completely correct. Thanks. I think I'm going to stick with my own, though...it's more of a "word" structure than a syllable structure, which lets awkwords do most of the work. I get to sit on my lazy butt. ;)

I can't blame you for embedding the morphological restraints (I do the same thing) but really that's not what you're doing here. You just disallow onset clusters between vowels and requiring 3 vowels per word. You can do that with (C(F/S)/(F)(S))WWW by setting the additional rule,

W:V((S)(F)(C))

(By the way, why require 3 vowels per morpheme? Just seems really weird.)

Here's the new verb table; is it more realistic? Are the conjugations too dissimilar?

I kept all the "definite" the same. The definite is the most commonly used conjugation, for regular statements and such.

I certainly like this one a lot better than the old, super-long on. Though the older one was a tad more realistic. How I would do it (and indeed how many natlangs do it) is to make cases with similar meanings be subtle variations of each other morphologically.

For example, your jussive could look something like this (with just "earfp"):

Begging - earo earon earod
Polite Pleading - earoe earoen earoed

(And let the n/d pattern for dual and plural follow more or less for the other inflections as well.)

[reizoukin]

I can't blame you for embedding the morphological restraints (I do the same thing) but really that's not what you're doing here. You just disallow onset clusters between vowels and requiring 3 vowels per word. You can do that with (C(F/S)/(F)(S))WWW by setting the additional rule,

W:V((S)(F)(C))

(By the way, why require 3 vowels per morpheme? Just seems really weird.)

I surrender. :P *goes to change*

I certainly like this one a lot better than the old, super-long on. Though the older one was a tad more realistic. How I would do it (and indeed how many natlangs do it) is to make cases with similar meanings be subtle variations of each other morphologically.

For example, your jussive could look something like this (with just "earfp"):

Begging - earo earon earod
Polite Pleading - earoe earoen earoed

(And let the n/d pattern for dual and plural follow more or less for the other inflections as well.)

Ah, I knew it. Thanks for the help. Perhaps singular uses "ua", dual uses "fiu", and plural uses "ars", or some variation thereof? (a, f, s?)

Before I make a whole new chart, how does this look for the potential?
-LIKELY: earail, nekail----earfail, nekailf----earsail, nekails
-UNLIKELY: earab, nekmab----earfab, nekufb----earsab, nekusb
-IMPOSSIBLE: earan, nekma----earfa, nekuf----earsa, nekus
-DEFINITE: eara, neka----earf, nekf----ears, neks

Too similar? Too dissimilar? Just right?

[Micamo]

Much better. My only concern now are the CF clusters in the coda which aren't normally allowed.

[reizoukin]

Much better. My only concern now are the CF clusters in the coda which aren't normally allowed.

*kills self for inconsistency*

Excuse my tired state of mind. I originally had it correct, and then changed it.

-LIKELY: earail, nekail----earfail, nekailf----earsail, nekails
-UNLIKELY: earab, nekmab----earfab, nekfub----earsab, neksub
-IMPOSSIBLE: earan, nekma----earfa, nekuf----earsa, nekus
-DEFINITE: eara, neka----earf, nekif----ears, nekis

[Micamo]

Alright!

One more quip I have for now, the suffix lnj. Unless you have a good reason to keep it around clusters like that tend to simplify, especially in productive affixes. How about just ln or even just l?

[reizoukin]

Alright!

One more quip I have for now, the suffix lnj. Unless you have a good reason to keep it around clusters like that tend to simplify, especially in productive affixes. How about just ln or even just l?

In some dialects, the second sound follows the place of articulation of the first sound. So, <lnj> would be [ln]. This is not true in all dialects; the "official" pronunciation is still [lnʲ], but the "official" pronunciation is usually only true for formal cases.


This is the new verb table. Does it look good? The Prohibiting is different from the others; it derives from root+ias (from msaias "no")

[Micamo]

In some dialects, the second sound follows the place of articulation of the first sound. So, <lnj> would be [ln]. This is not true in all dialects; the "official" pronunciation is still [lnʲ], but the "official" pronunciation is usually only true for formal cases.

You can shoot me this time: I forgot nj was just a digraph. Carry on.

This is the new verb table. Does it look good? The Prohibiting is different from the others; it derives from root+ias (from msaias "no")

Tbh I think it uses too much 'h'. Such a nasty sound and you use it in so many endings! I think I'd also prefer to see more vowel clusters in the endings because that's what you seem to be going for with the roots (Like in "Oeika").