(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

[Khemehekis]

The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)

Congratulations on your new name! Is it pronounced like "zymurgy" (with /ai/), or like "Zima" (with /i/)?

Caber is going to need a new word.

You're referring to łímo?

That’s in CT.

Common Caber has śimo ‘friend’ and śimobatar ‘friendship’. I will have to add something appropriate…perhaps zŭmŏ ‘to bestow a name (on s.o.), to name, to identify, to assign, to designate’.

Wow . . . I remembered someone had an Easter egg based on "shimo" that meant "friend", but I didn't remember who it was, and searching for 'shimobaatar friend easter' didn't help me. I like your zŭmŏ idea, though!

[zyma]

The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)

Congratulations on your new name! Is it pronounced like "zymurgy" (with /ai/), or like "Zima" (with /i/)?

Caber is going to need a new word.

You're referring to łímo?

That’s in CT.

Common Caber has śimo ‘friend’ and śimobatar ‘friendship’. I will have to add something appropriate…perhaps zŭmŏ ‘to bestow a name (on s.o.), to name, to identify, to assign, to designate’.

I like your zŭmŏ idea, though!

[Arayaz]

First off, if this would be better suited for a different thread (the Linguistics & Natlangs one specifically), it's fine to move it.

Anyway, when dividing morpheme boundaries in a gloss, what does one do if a morpheme is separable, but has an effect on the root? Specifically:

fulh "to make honey"
fušae "will make honey"

The future tense suffix is -yae, and the shift from lhy to š is regular. So my question is, how should I gloss fušae?

I considered the following:
fuš-ae make.honey-FUT
fu-šae make.honey-FUT
fušae make.honey.FUT
fulh-yae make.honey-FUT

But which of these would be standard?

[Knox Adjacent]

The last option I think.

[Ahzoh]

First off, if this would be better suited for a different thread (the Linguistics & Natlangs one specifically), it's fine to move it.

Anyway, when dividing morpheme boundaries in a gloss, what does one do if a morpheme is separable, but has an effect on the root? Specifically:

fulh "to make honey"
fušae "will make honey"

The future tense suffix is -yae, and the shift from lhy to š is regular. So my question is, how should I gloss fušae?

I considered the following:
fuš-ae make.honey-FUT
fu-šae make.honey-FUT
fušae make.honey.FUT
fulh-yae make.honey-FUT

But which of these would be standard?

Option 4 if you want to emphasize underlying morphemes. Otherwise, option 1 is best.

[Arayaz]

I checked the Leipzig Glossing Rules, which would suggest fu\šae or perhaps fu\š-ae ─ but I might be misinterpreting them. Does anyone know more?

[Omzinesý]

First off, if this would be better suited for a different thread (the Linguistics & Natlangs one specifically), it's fine to move it.

Anyway, when dividing morpheme boundaries in a gloss, what does one do if a morpheme is separable, but has an effect on the root? Specifically:

fulh "to make honey"
fušae "will make honey"

The future tense suffix is -yae, and the shift from lhy to š is regular. So my question is, how should I gloss fušae?

I considered the following:
fuš-ae make.honey-FUT
fu-šae make.honey-FUT
fušae make.honey.FUT
fulh-yae make.honey-FUT

But which of these would be standard?

Have an extra row.

fušea
fulh-yea
make_money-FUT
'will make money'

[Arayaz]

First off, if this would be better suited for a different thread (the Linguistics & Natlangs one specifically), it's fine to move it.

Anyway, when dividing morpheme boundaries in a gloss, what does one do if a morpheme is separable, but has an effect on the root? Specifically:

fulh "to make honey"
fušae "will make honey"

The future tense suffix is -yae, and the shift from lhy to š is regular. So my question is, how should I gloss fušae?

I considered the following:
fuš-ae make.honey-FUT
fu-šae make.honey-FUT
fušae make.honey.FUT
fulh-yae make.honey-FUT

But which of these would be standard?

Have an extra row.

fušea
fulh-yea
make_money-FUT
'will make money'

Oh, that works. Thanks!

[Ahzoh]

Using a word gen, having troubles deciding what order of frequency my phonemes should be in. Learned that phoneme distributions tend to follow a Yule-Simon distribution pattern.

So I have a bunch of questions whose answers i think will give me insight on what to do:

1) Would sonorants/resonants be more frequent than obstruents?
2) Would coronals be more frequent than velars?
3) Would coronals be more frequent than labials?
4) Would labials be more frequent than velars?
5) Would lenis/voiced obstruents be more frequent than fortis/voiceless obstruents?
6) Would fortis/voiceless obstruents be more frequent than ejective/emphatic obstruents?

I think then I can determine a relative-frequency hierarchy I can adjust as i see fit.

[Khemehekis]

Using a word gen, having troubles deciding what order of frequency my phonemes should be in. Learned that phoneme distributions tend to follow a Yule-Simon distribution pattern.

So I have a bunch of questions whose answers i think will give me insight on what to do:

1) Would sonorants/resonants be more frequent than obstruents?
2) Would coronals be more frequent than velars?
3) Would coronals be more frequent than labials?
4) Would labials be more frequent than velars?
5) Would lenis/voiced obstruents be more frequent than fortis/voiceless obstruents?
6) Would fortis/voiceless obstruents be more frequent than ejective/emphatic obstruents?

I think then I can determine a relative-frequency hierarchy I can adjust as i see fit.

Going on English's distribution, this is the frequency of English's letters:

ETAONRISHDLFCMUGYPWBVKJXQZ

So obviously coronals are the most common consonants in English. Coronal endings as markers of plurals, verb forms, noun cases, etc. are also the most common inflectional suffixes cross-linguistically.

[Ahzoh]

Going on English's distribution, this is the frequency of English's letters:

ETAONRISHDLFCMUGYPWBVKJXQZ

So obviously coronals are the most common consonants in English. Coronal endings as markers of plurals, verb forms, noun cases, etc. are also the most common inflectional suffixes cross-linguistically.

Yes, looking at English, some other languages and Arabic and Amharic, there are definitely some interesting patterns.

So given what I could glean, I basically came up with this relative distribution hierarchy of phonemes:

1) l > r > y=w
2) n > m > ŋ
3) t > k > ć=č > p
4) ṭ > ḳ > ḱ=ǩ > ṗ
5) b > d > ǵ=ǧ > g
6) ḫ > s=ś=š > f
7) ʔ=h > ḥ > ʡ
(NB: acute = lateral obstruents, caron = postalveolar obstruents, dot = ejective/guttural)

I'm not sure how naturalistic it is, but it seems to make sense. Now it is just a matter of putting these together somehow. I reckon /t/ should be more frequent than /d/, /k/ more frequent than /g/ and /b/ more frequent than /p/. So then maybe I'll have t > k > b > d > g > p

[thethief3]

According to somewhere *p is often the most frequent phoneme in languages that have it
Aesthetically i prefer nasals especially *m and *n as they are good in all positions (except for *m finally) and very sonorous unlike say liquids which i usually prefer intervocalically

[Salmoneus]

Using a word gen, having troubles deciding what order of frequency my phonemes should be in. Learned that phoneme distributions tend to follow a Yule-Simon distribution pattern.

So I have a bunch of questions whose answers i think will give me insight on what to do:

1) Would sonorants/resonants be more frequent than obstruents?
2) Would coronals be more frequent than velars?
3) Would coronals be more frequent than labials?
4) Would labials be more frequent than velars?
5) Would lenis/voiced obstruents be more frequent than fortis/voiceless obstruents?
6) Would fortis/voiceless obstruents be more frequent than ejective/emphatic obstruents?

I think then I can determine a relative-frequency hierarchy I can adjust as i see fit.

Different languages look different from one another! That's what makes them different!

To give an obvious example: if one language has voiced all intervocalic stops and fricatives, and its sister language has not done so, then they'll have very different answers to your question 5, won't they? Likewise in a language like Hawaiian where /t/ has become /k/, the relative distribution of coronals vs velars will have changed!

What's more, whatever the relative distributions inside roots, the overall distributions in a language will be dramatically altered by the pure coincidence of a handful of its most common grammatical phonemes. If the plural, third-person and past tense markers all involve an ejective, then ejectives may be very common in a given text of the language, even if very few morphemes contain them.

[Salmoneus]

ETAONRISHDLFCMUGYPWBVKJXQZ

Traditionally, it's considered to be ETAOIN SHRDLU CMFWY PVBG KQJXZ (the letters of a linotype keyboard).

Wikipedia also gives the orders (putting the trad version next to them for easier comparison):

ETAOIN SHRDLU CMFWY PVBG KQJXZ (trad)
ETAOIN SRHDLU CMFYW GPBV KXQJZ
ETAOIN SHRDLC UMWFG YPBV KJXQZ

This is of course different from phoneme frequency. I've always used this blog post as a handy guide, which gives /@nrtIsdlikDEMZP{vwubeVf.aI.AhoQNSjg.dZ.tS.aU.U.T.OI.Z/. Obviously there are questions of dialect and phonemic analysis (that guy was using an American pronouncing dictionary with a British word corpus and some of his own ad hoc transcription decisions), and the comments there mention at least three other studies (one from the 50s, one from the 80s and one in the last decade). But it's a rough approximation.

[WeepingElf]

According to somewhere *p is often the most frequent phoneme in languages that have it

In Pabappa's conworld, yes. But not here.

[Ahzoh]

Using a word gen, having troubles deciding what order of frequency my phonemes should be in. Learned that phoneme distributions tend to follow a Yule-Simon distribution pattern.

So I have a bunch of questions whose answers i think will give me insight on what to do:

1) Would sonorants/resonants be more frequent than obstruents?
2) Would coronals be more frequent than velars?
3) Would coronals be more frequent than labials?
4) Would labials be more frequent than velars?
5) Would lenis/voiced obstruents be more frequent than fortis/voiceless obstruents?
6) Would fortis/voiceless obstruents be more frequent than ejective/emphatic obstruents?

I think then I can determine a relative-frequency hierarchy I can adjust as i see fit.

Different languages look different from one another! That's what makes them different!

To give an obvious example: if one language has voiced all intervocalic stops and fricatives, and its sister language has not done so, then they'll have very different answers to your question 5, won't they? Likewise in a language like Hawaiian where /t/ has become /k/, the relative distribution of coronals vs velars will have changed!

What's more, whatever the relative distributions inside roots, the overall distributions in a language will be dramatically altered by the pure coincidence of a handful of its most common grammatical phonemes. If the plural, third-person and past tense markers all involve an ejective, then ejectives may be very common in a given text of the language, even if very few morphemes contain them.

Ultimately I decided on this relative order of frequency, which I think is naturalistic enough:
l > t > n > k > m > b > r > ḳ > ḫ > s=ś=š > ʔ=h > y=w > ḥ > ṭ > ć=č > d > f > ŋ > ǵ=ǧ > g > p > ḱ=ǩ > ṗ > ʡ

[Visions1]

I'm late and you plan is still great. So, I'm sorry if this is a bother.

I'd just roll a dice. I actually designed a conlang or two that way before.

[Pabappa]

3) t > k > ć=č > p
4) ṭ > ḳ > ḱ=ǩ > ṗ
(NB: acute = lateral obstruents, caron = postalveolar obstruents, dot = ejective/guttural)

Im just curious what the difference is between the consonants with C and those with K. Are the C's affricates and the K's stops? Or are you using the K to stand for ejectives (as are the others on its line)?

[Ahzoh]

3) t > k > ć=č > p
4) ṭ > ḳ > ḱ=ǩ > ṗ
(NB: acute = lateral obstruents, caron = postalveolar obstruents, dot = ejective/guttural)

Im just curious what the difference is between the consonants with C and those with K. Are the C's affricates and the K's stops? Or are you using the K to stand for ejectives (as are the others on its line)?

The diacritic'd k's are ejectives because using C and dots below doesn't display well nor work well in wordgens.

[Omzinesý]

Xiwook nouns and adjectives can have a personal prefix when they are predicates, (2).

(1)
Kono cuur.
K beautiful
'Kono is beautiful.'

(2)
Kono sa-cuur.
K SG3-beautiful
'Kono is beautiful.'

The prefix is obligatory if there is no explicit subject, (3).

(3)
Sa-cuur.
Sg3-beautiful
'She/he/it is beautiful.'

What could be the semantic difference between (1) and (2)?