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

[Nortaneous]

I'm not much of a fan of digraphs, since they're likely to present ambiguity problems, but there doesn't seem to be any good way to handle this. I do like the idea of <z> with diacritics, but that could get confusing. I might just use <ż ṡ ẋ>; Maltese has <z ż> /ts z/, so it's not too terrible a stretch, I guess.

edit: Or I might switch <z> to <c>, but I'm not sure how much I like the aesthetic that'd give.

[ian9113]

Do any of you "merge" your cases? Similar to in Latin, where some case endings are the same as others (e.g. "a æ æ am a" for N G A D Ab). If so, why keep the case around? I want to know because I'd like to do the same in a conlang. Are the any particular disadvantages to it?

[LittleTree]

Do any of you "merge" your cases? Similar to in Latin, where some case endings are the same as others (e.g. "a æ æ am a" for N G A D Ab). If so, why keep the case around? I want to know because I'd like to do the same in a conlang. Are the any particular disadvantages to it?

The plural endings for the 1st declension are -ae, -as, -arum, -is, -is. None of the cases are completely 'merged', as although some of the endings are the same, this is only in either the singular or plural, never both.

However, cases can combine (see this bit about case evolution on Wikipedia) and I can't really think of any particular disadvantages to it. It just means that one case will have all the functions of the original combined cases.

[Nortaneous]

Kannow doesn't have cases, but there's syncretism elsewhere: some verbal person markers can mark more than one case (-ow is first-person singular agent, third-person singular agent for the first and fourth noun classes, and third-person plural agent for the fourth noun class), and some noun classes don't distinguish between the definite (which doesn't mark for number) and the indefinite plural.

[taylorS]

Do any of you "merge" your cases? Similar to in Latin, where some case endings are the same as others (e.g. "a æ æ am a" for N G A D Ab). If so, why keep the case around? I want to know because I'd like to do the same in a conlang. Are the any particular disadvantages to it?

Alpic's direct plural and instrumental singular are both -t. The instrumental singular was originally -d, but then final plosives devoiced.

[reizoukin]

How common/rare are palatal plosives and fricatives?
Is it too unrealistic to have velar-uvular distinctions?
Also, how many fricatives would you call too many, in terms of what's realistic and commonplace?

[Lambuzhao]

Dear Conlangers:

This is a conscript question. Specifically it deals with classifying writing systems by direction.
Is "boustrophedon" the only name for a specific writing system's direction? Do any (nat/con)languages have specific names for, say, vertical writing that starts from the left, vertical writing that starts from the right? For example, my Rozwi language writes in vertical columns that go from right to left across the page. Is there a name (in English, Greek, Esperanto, etc) for that kind of writing?
Has any philologist/linguist/calligrapher been connected with starting his/her own system of classification. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here?

Maybe I should post this with the Natlangers as well.

Wondering,

Lambuzhao

[Ànradh]

How common/rare are palatal plosives and fricatives?
Is it too unrealistic to have velar-uvular distinctions?
Also, how many fricatives would you call too many, in terms of what's realistic and commonplace?

I did a bit of research into the second question for Iriex.
From what I could see, languages (usually) either had a palatal-uvular contrast for fricatives or a velar fricative.
I don't recall finding any without a velar stop if a uvular one was present.
I found language that allowed a uvular fricative (with no uvular stop) and a velar stop (with no velar fricative) but I can't remember what it was...
Basically, uvular-velar distinctions are perfectly realistic.

[Maoti]

How common/rare are palatal plosives and fricatives?
Is it too unrealistic to have velar-uvular distinctions?
Also, how many fricatives would you call too many, in terms of what's realistic and commonplace?

I did a bit of research into the second question for Iriex.
From what I could see, languages (usually) either had a palatal-uvular contrast for fricatives or a velar fricative.
I don't recall finding any without a velar stop if a uvular one was present.
I found language that allowed a uvular fricative (with no uvular stop) and a velar stop (with no velar fricative) but I can't remember what it was...
Basically, uvular-velar distinctions are perfectly realistic.

Palatal plosives are fairly common but phonemic palatal fricatives are quite rare, occurring in just 5 or 6% of languages. Palatal plosives are significantly less common than post-alveolar affricates, however, as it is difficult to get the tongue to touch just the hard palate without also touching the back part of the alveolar ridge. The number of fricatives your language should have depends upon the size of your consonant inventory. I would say at the most 50% of your consonants should be fricatives. My conlang Nutavik (the consonant inventory of which you can view here: http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Nutavik#Consonants) has 15 consonants, 7 of which are fricatives. Regarding the velar-uvular contrast, lots of languages in many different language families have this distinction for plosives, fricatives and occasionally also nasals. Lakota, Welsh and Yiddish each have a velar stop and uvular fricative, but no uvular stop or velar fricative. Klallam and the now extinct Chemakum language each have a uvular plosive but no plain velar plosive. Both do have a labialized velar plosive, however. Klallam also has a uvular nasal but no velar nasal.

[bororo]

I found language that allowed a uvular fricative (with no uvular stop) and a velar stop (with no velar fricative) but I can't remember what it was...

Actually, many languages have /ʁ k/ without /q x/.

[eldin raigmore]

.... classifying writing systems by direction.
Is "boustrophedon" the only name for a specific writing system's direction? Do any (nat/con)languages have specific names for, say, vertical writing that starts from the left, vertical writing that starts from the right? For example, my Rozwi language writes in vertical columns that go from right to left across the page. Is there a name (in English, Greek, Esperanto, etc) for that kind of writing?
Has any philologist/linguist/calligrapher been connected with starting his/her own system of classification. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here?

"Boustrephedon" could apply to any writing-system in which the direction of writing reverses from one line to the next.

TTBOMK no vertical natscript is boustrephedon. TTBOMK all vertical natscripts are top-to-bottom.

My conlang Adpihi (or, at least, Old Adpihi) also is a vertical boustrephedon. Lines alternate between bottom-to-top and top-to-bottom; the first line starts at the bottom right, the second line starts at the top just to the left of where the first line ends, the third line starts at the bottom just to the left of where the second line ends, and so on.

There are good reasons, depending on the writing-medium, why natscripts that have only one direction are all either right-to-left or left-to-right or top-to-bottom.

A writer needs to be able to see what s/he has already written, and also needs not to accidentally smear or otherwise damage what s/he has already written.

So if a right-handed writer writes with hammer and chisel, right-to-left is preferred over right-to-left left-to-right; if a right-handed writer writes with brush and ink, left-to-right is preferred over right-to-left. In either case, earlier lines should be above later lines.

OTOH in a vertical script, earlier characters should be above later characters (so lines should go top-to-bottom). If a right-handed writer is writing with brush and ink, later lines should be to the right of earlier lines; if writing with hammer and chisel, later lines should be to the left of earlier lines.

TTBOMK boustrephedon occurs in natscripts only when they are evolving from right-to-left towards left-to-write.

There are more than one kind (three TTBOMK) of boustrephedon. The characters on one line may be the same as on an adjacent line; or, the characters on one line may be left-to-right mirror-images of the characters on an adjacent line; or the characters on one line may be top-to-bottom mirror-images of the characters on an adjacent line.

I do not know of names for all of these different kinds of writing-directions. I don't know of names for different kinds of boustrephedon. I don't know of names for vertical boustrephedons.

I doubt that they are common enough among natscripts to have been given names by non-conlangers and non-conscripters. But I could be wrong, and that would be good.

[Ànradh]

[So if a right-handed writer writes with hammer and chisel, right-to-left is preferred over right-to-left; if a right-handed writer writes with brush and ink, left-to-right is preferred over right-to-left. In either case, earlier lines should be above later lines.

Right to left is preffered over left to right for hammers and chisels?

[reizoukin]

Thank you to those who helped.

[thaen]

Would it be naturalistic (or even plausible) to have the particles modifying a verb their own separate word?

Noun -- particles -- verb

Or seen more defined:

sub. -- past.ind.sub. -- root

I know these are sketchy examples at best, but bear with me, please.

[MrKrov]

Would it be naturalistic (or even plausible) to have the particles modifying a verb be their own separate word?

I assume be is supposed to be there. And yes. I don't know why you need to ask this.

[thaen]

Just to make sure. I suppose it would be like cramming all of the modifiers in an isolating lang and giving them their own stress, which would separate them from the verb.

[eldin raigmore]

So if a right-handed writer writes with hammer and chisel, right-to-left is preferred over right-to-left; if a right-handed writer writes with brush and ink, left-to-right is preferred over right-to-left. In either case, earlier lines should be above later lines.

Oops!
I meant "right-to-left is preferred over left-to-right by right-handed writers writing with hammer and chisel".
I have edited the post in which I made that error.

Right to left is prefered over left to right for hammers and chisels?

Yes. That's what I meant.

[Lambuzhao]

Would it be naturalistic (or even plausible) to have the particles modifying a verb their own separate word?

Noun -- particles -- verb

Or seen more defined:

sub. -- past.ind.sub. -- root

I know these are sketchy examples at best, but bear with me, please.

Dear Thaen,

I'm hitching on late here. But from what you describe, among other languages, that sounds a lot like what happens in Coptic.

the old Egyptian verb yrr.f (to do) became an auxilliary word in Coptic, to which the verbal suffixes denoting person, number
(and gender in some cases) get suffixed. These little packets may or may not be directly attached to the front of the verb.
This does duty for the present, and perfect (if I remember right).

The imperfect, the subjunctive, the future, the prospective, they all have separate little preverbs which came from various verbs that existed already in Middle or Demotic Egyptian.

So, in Coptic, a construction like subject -- [preverb with all mood, tense, person, number markers appended] -- main verb
can exist. Usually, though, the actual subject (if it is a {proper} noun) comes after the verb. An exception is to add emphasis, or to indentify the subject as more of a topical person\place\thing to be spread over various ideas, for which a particle "ndje"
is suffixed, and then that word is given utterance-initial position.

But Check out sources like Loprieno's Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Intrioduction(you may have to buy or Library this one), Tattam's Coptic Grammar (I think on Google-Books) to be certain.
I hope this helps.

Lambuzhao

[cedh]

I have a question about syncretism and analogy in verbal agreement:

In my latest project, a highly synthetic language which marks both subjects and objects on the verb (by means of prefixes that also encode past vs. non-past tense; these prefixes always end up in an unstressed word-initial syllable), sound changes lead to the following situation:

Non-past tense:
- the transitive 1st singular subject prefixes are almost identical to the transitive 3rd plural subject prefixes
- the transitive 1st plural subject prefixes are very similar to the transitive 3rd singular inanimate subject prefixes (which are rarely used; also, the animacy distinction is being lost everywhere else in the language), and almost identical to the transitive 3sg/pl relativized subject prefixes (which are identical between past and non-past tense)
- the transitive 3rd singular animate subject prefixes remain unique

Past tense:
- the transitive 1st singular subject prefixes are almost identical to the transitive 3rd singular inanimate subject prefixes (which are rarely used), and fairly similar to both the transitive 3rd plural subject prefixes and the transitive 3sg/3pl relativized subject prefixes
- the transitive 1st plural subject prefixes are very similar to the transitive 3rd singular animate subject prefixes
- the transitive 3rd plural subject prefixes are exactly identical to the transitive 3sg/pl relativized subject prefixes

I can easily see several different ways in which analogy might transform this system into something more coherent, but I'm not sure which of these paths would be most likely. I'm guessing that 1sg and 3sg.anim subject forms would be used more often than the corresponding plurals, and thus more likely to retain their shape and meaning, but I'd like to hear some other people's opinions. In particular, I'm wondering whether a possible agreement system with general syncretism of both (1sg = 3pl) AND (1pl = 3sg) would be stable, and if not, what kind of system it might be replaced with.

What do you think?

[Omzinesý]

Is my analysis of Mîzmiz vowel system correct, in your opinion?

Vowels
Omega is used to represent the lax unrounded closed vowel.

Mîzmiz has six basic vowels /ɪ/ <i>, /ω/ <y>, /ʊ/ <u>, /ɛ/ <e>, /ʌ/ <a> and /ɔ/ <o>.
There are three different phonemes of each basic vowel, but I will analyze them as suprasegmentals rather than separate phonemes, because their appearance is somewhat limited and bound to the stress.

Their most normal realization is the lax vowel with a flat tone, which can appear in all positions.
/ɪ/ <i>, /ω/ <y>, /ʊ/ <u>, /ɛ/ <e>, /ʌ/ <a>, and /ɔ/ <o>

In the stressed syllables (penultimate) and in the final syllables in some cases (topicalisation), they can get the form of the corresponding tense vowels, marked with tilde.
/i/ <î>, /ɯ/ <ŷ>, /u/ <û>, /æ/ <ê>, /ɑ/ <â>, and /ɒ/ <ô>

In the stressed syllables (penultimate) and in the final syllables in some cases, they get the form of the corresponding tense vowels with a rising tone, marked with the acute accent.
/i˩˥/ <í>, /ɯ˩˥/ <ý>, /u˩˥/ <ú>, /æ˩˥/ <é>, /ɑ˩˥/ <á>, and /ɒ˩˥/ <ó>

So the tense vowels (with the flat or rising tone) can only appear in the stressed syllables and word-finally when the word is topicalized.
So I will analyse the tense/lax distinction, as well as the tone, as suprasegmentals, and Mîzmiz has only six vowel phonemes.