Need help with Hittite-eqsue conlang
Posted: 27 Jul 2021 15:32
Hi there. I'm not entirely sure how to start off, so I'll introduce myself. I'm Visions; I've had an interest in conlanging and linguistics for ~6 years now (though I'm still working on my learning curve, let's just say).
I'm currently working on a conlang that's heavily based on Hittite. At least in its proto form.
I'm currently a bit lost with the proto-language, so I'm looking for advice. Or at least feedback. Those parts describing that will be in italics.
Phonology
/m n / <m n>
/b d g gʷ / <b d g gw>
/pʰ tʰ kʰ kʷʰ/ <p t k kw>
(p̚ t̚ k̚ k̚ʷ ) (closed-coda allophones of /p t k kʷ/, so are written the same)
/ s x xʷ / <s x xw>
/ z~ð / <z>
/ l r / <l r>
/ j w / <y w>
/i i: u u:/ <i i: u u:>
/ a a: / <a a:>
The consonants have a fortis/lenis distinction. This will be exaggerated in its descendants.
Phonotactics are (c)v(v)(every c except /b d g gʷ/)
Verbal Morphology
Verbs are inflected for number (sg/pl), person (1/2/3), voice (act/pas), mood*, and two groups of aspects.
This is where the first problem is - I'm not sure how many moods I should have. I feel like it should be just two - realis/jussive, but it feels sort of bare. I might even just trash mood entirely in favour of something else, or just use auxiliaries for it.
The second problem has something to do with the aspect system, so I'll explain it first.
There are two sets of aspects: im/perfective, and inchoative/cessative/stative.
Inc. says the verb begins to be done. ("He starts to cook.")
Ces. says the verb finishes being done. ("He stops cooking.")
Stat. says the verb just is. It doesn't specify starting or stopping. ("He cooks.") The stative aspect is unmarked.
The im/perfective tells you whether or not the starting/finishing of the verb has itself been completed - or in the case of the stative aspect, whether it's a general verb, or progressive. (Perfective is unmarked, by the way.)
"He started to cook" vs. "He hasn't yet started to cook."
"He stopped cooking" vs. "He hasn't yet stopped cooking."
"He cooks" vs. "He is cooking."
If you think about it, you can imply tense using these combinations. Ignoring Stative for now, Inc. and Ces. take on the meanings of progressive and perfective respectfully, while "perfective" and "imperfective" come to imply past and future.
"He started to cook (= was cooking)" vs. "He hasn't yet started to cook (= shall cook)."
"He stopped cooking (= cooked)" vs. "He hasn't yet stopped cooking (= shall have cooked)."
This is pretty much reversed in the Stative - there, the imperfective implies progressive, while perfective implies a simple stative verb.
"He cooks" vs. "He is cooking."
Not only does this create a future retrospective (which is really cool - and rather useless, which only makes it cooler and even more useful)
- it gives a lot of options to imply moods, or sequences of events, or just reg. old tenses.
Which is where my second problem comes in: how should I imply tense using these aspects?
I want to use certain aspects as points of reference, like in Mayan languages, but I also want it to just act like a tense system sometimes.
Should I do both? Are there any pieces of advice/real-life examples as to how I should do it?
What else could I imply with them? Should I use them for mood? Or something else?
Noun/Derivational morphology
There will be cases. I don't know about other categories. [I'm going to work on this later]. Animacy is probably too Hittite right?
Syntax
The conlang is head-final (SOV), and inflectional. I'm not really sure if I want to add in ergativity, but I have a feeling it might be necessary.
Currently, I'm not sure how exactly to make an inflectional syntax from scratch. Like I could evolve one, but I want to give it one from the get-go.
And while I could evolve it, I don't know any tried methods outside of just squishing suffixes together and making sound changes.
---------------------
And outside of some future sound changes and a rudimentary word list, that's it!
I haven't started work on much of the actual morphemes (only for 3sg, and that just a draft). So I'll be working on it.
Thanks for reading this far (even if you skipped some of the stuff). I hope it was understandable at least ^w^.
I'm currently working on a conlang that's heavily based on Hittite. At least in its proto form.
I'm currently a bit lost with the proto-language, so I'm looking for advice. Or at least feedback. Those parts describing that will be in italics.
Phonology
/m n / <m n>
/b d g gʷ / <b d g gw>
/pʰ tʰ kʰ kʷʰ/ <p t k kw>
(p̚ t̚ k̚ k̚ʷ ) (closed-coda allophones of /p t k kʷ/, so are written the same)
/ s x xʷ / <s x xw>
/ z~ð / <z>
/ l r / <l r>
/ j w / <y w>
/i i: u u:/ <i i: u u:>
/ a a: / <a a:>
The consonants have a fortis/lenis distinction. This will be exaggerated in its descendants.
Phonotactics are (c)v(v)(every c except /b d g gʷ/)
Verbal Morphology
Verbs are inflected for number (sg/pl), person (1/2/3), voice (act/pas), mood*, and two groups of aspects.
This is where the first problem is - I'm not sure how many moods I should have. I feel like it should be just two - realis/jussive, but it feels sort of bare. I might even just trash mood entirely in favour of something else, or just use auxiliaries for it.
The second problem has something to do with the aspect system, so I'll explain it first.
There are two sets of aspects: im/perfective, and inchoative/cessative/stative.
Inc. says the verb begins to be done. ("He starts to cook.")
Ces. says the verb finishes being done. ("He stops cooking.")
Stat. says the verb just is. It doesn't specify starting or stopping. ("He cooks.") The stative aspect is unmarked.
The im/perfective tells you whether or not the starting/finishing of the verb has itself been completed - or in the case of the stative aspect, whether it's a general verb, or progressive. (Perfective is unmarked, by the way.)
"He started to cook" vs. "He hasn't yet started to cook."
"He stopped cooking" vs. "He hasn't yet stopped cooking."
"He cooks" vs. "He is cooking."
If you think about it, you can imply tense using these combinations. Ignoring Stative for now, Inc. and Ces. take on the meanings of progressive and perfective respectfully, while "perfective" and "imperfective" come to imply past and future.
"He started to cook (= was cooking)" vs. "He hasn't yet started to cook (= shall cook)."
"He stopped cooking (= cooked)" vs. "He hasn't yet stopped cooking (= shall have cooked)."
This is pretty much reversed in the Stative - there, the imperfective implies progressive, while perfective implies a simple stative verb.
"He cooks" vs. "He is cooking."
Not only does this create a future retrospective (which is really cool - and rather useless, which only makes it cooler and even more useful)
- it gives a lot of options to imply moods, or sequences of events, or just reg. old tenses.
Which is where my second problem comes in: how should I imply tense using these aspects?
I want to use certain aspects as points of reference, like in Mayan languages, but I also want it to just act like a tense system sometimes.
Should I do both? Are there any pieces of advice/real-life examples as to how I should do it?
What else could I imply with them? Should I use them for mood? Or something else?
Noun/Derivational morphology
There will be cases. I don't know about other categories. [I'm going to work on this later]. Animacy is probably too Hittite right?
Syntax
The conlang is head-final (SOV), and inflectional. I'm not really sure if I want to add in ergativity, but I have a feeling it might be necessary.
Currently, I'm not sure how exactly to make an inflectional syntax from scratch. Like I could evolve one, but I want to give it one from the get-go.
And while I could evolve it, I don't know any tried methods outside of just squishing suffixes together and making sound changes.
---------------------
And outside of some future sound changes and a rudimentary word list, that's it!
I haven't started work on much of the actual morphemes (only for 3sg, and that just a draft). So I'll be working on it.
Thanks for reading this far (even if you skipped some of the stuff). I hope it was understandable at least ^w^.