Indo-European diachronic collablang
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
104. b
105. a
106. bfh
107. cd
105. a
106. bfh
107. cd
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
104) B
105) B (I kinda did propose it, so maybe my vote shouldn't be considered)
106) B D F G
107) C ( But I propose remaking Imperatives with a different construct)
105) B (I kinda did propose it, so maybe my vote shouldn't be considered)
106) B D F G
107) C ( But I propose remaking Imperatives with a different construct)
Spoiler:
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
You can definitely vote on things you've proposed! And regarding topics like the reintroduction of certain cases and moods, the innovation of completely new cases and moods, and the innovation of paraphrastic constructions, we'll vote on that kind of thing soon, but for now I want to figure out what's going to happen to the original mood and case "inventories" reconstructed for PIE.
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
I think this way of voting makes more sense.
104. a
105. b
106. abfh
107. cd
104. a
105. b
106. abfh
107. cd
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
Are you counting the votes yet?shimobaatar wrote:Results for Questions #101-103:
We'll be voting on which moods and cases to keep in the coming weeks, among other things. When an option says something like "get rid of the nominative", that doesn't mean we won't have any way to express the agent of a transitive verb or the experiencer of an intransitive verb; instead, it means that PIE's nominative case endings will no longer be used, and another case/another set of endings will take on the usages of the nominative case in addition to its own former usages. Hopefully that makes sense.Spoiler:
I'd strongly suggest looking up reconstructed verb and noun inflection charts for PIE to see which sets of endings you prefer. When the time comes for us to decide which cases and moods to merge, we will have to decide whether to use the first case or mood's endings, the second case or mood's endings, or a combination of the two sets. Hopefully that makes sense as well.
New questions:
104. As a tiebreaker for question #103, what should we do about the tense distinction found in PIE's imperfective aspect?
a). We should retain it, but leave it as it is in PIE.
b). We should retain it, and spread it to the perfective aspect as well.
105. Should the changes /pr br tr dr kr gr/ > /r r r r k g/ be applied?
a). Yes.
b). No.
c). Other (please explain).
106. We'll be retaining three of PIE's cases. Which of the following should be lost first?
a). Nominative.
b). Vocative.
c). Accusative.
d). Instrumental.
e). Dative.
f). Ablative.
g). Genitive.
h). Locative.
107. We'll be retaining three of PIE's moods. Which of the following should be lost first?
a). Indicative.
b). Imperative.
c). Optative.
d). Subjunctive.
As usual, we're using approval voting, and please let me know if I've made any mistakes.
Please feel free to suggest ideas for future questions, but please keep in mind that no further phonological/phonetic questions are being accepted at this time.
Spoiler:
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
I was very sick earlier this week, and I'm still sick now. In addition to that, I'm working on making up work for school that I was unable to do when I was at the height of my illness, so to speak. Counting the votes isn't something that can be done quickly, but making the new questions can take even longer. I haven't forgotten about this, I assure you. I know I can sometimes take a while to update things, but I don't forget about this thread. Pretty much every day I have it open in another tab or something so, if I have free time, and I don't feel like collapsing during that time, I could try to work on this. But for a number of reasons, I'm unable to make this thread the top priority in my life, and I'm very, very sorry for that.
That being said, the new round should be starting soon.
That being said, the new round should be starting soon.
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
There is no reason to feel sorry, it's understandable, none of us could pull off such an endeavor; with school and such, it would be incredibly difficult to do this. I wish you the best of luck regarding your schoolwork, and I hope you feel better.shimobaatar wrote:I was very sick earlier this week, and I'm still sick now. In addition to that, I'm working on making up work for school that I was unable to do when I was at the height of my illness, so to speak. Counting the votes isn't something that can be done quickly, but making the new questions can take even longer. I haven't forgotten about this, I assure you. I know I can sometimes take a while to update things, but I don't forget about this thread. Pretty much every day I have it open in another tab or something so, if I have free time, and I don't feel like collapsing during that time, I could try to work on this. But for a number of reasons, I'm unable to make this thread the top priority in my life, and I'm very, very sorry for that.
That being said, the new round should be starting soon.
I meant to bump this up without writing "bump" or "please vote", and I wasn't sure what to put in. Please accept my apologies for pressuring you.
Spoiler:
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
Oh, no, there's no need to apologize. I'm sorry for overreacting because of stress. Also, you clearly had good intentions, and there's usually no way to tell whether or not people have forgotten about something without asking (and I'm aware of the general feeling of anxiety that surrounds collablangs).
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
Results for Questions #104-107:
It was recommended that this second round of case/mood voting should include two kinds of questions: a question to determine which case/mood the case/mood that got the most votes in round one will be merged with, and a question to determine which case/mood will be the next to be lost. Technically, there's a slight chance we could vote to merge the case/mood we voted to get rid of last round with the case/mood that we then vote to get rid of this round. I know it's not likely at all, so I'll be including both types of questions. If anyone wants to propose an alternate way, please do so.
Well, actually, since we'll be going down from 4 moods to 3, which is our goal, this round, certain statements here may apply only to cases.
Notes (same as the last round):
New questions:
108. The vocative case will be the first to be "lost". Which case should we merge it with?
a). Nominative.
b). Accusative.
c). Instrumental.
d). Dative.
e). Ablative.
f). Genitive.
g). Locative.
109. We'll be retaining three of PIE's cases. Which of the following should be lost next?
a). Nominative.
b). Accusative.
c). Instrumental.
d). Dative.
e). Ablative.
f). Genitive.
g). Locative.
110. The optative mood will be "lost". Which mood should we merge it with?
a). Indicative.
b). Imperative.
c). Subjunctive.
As usual, we're using approval voting, and please let me know if I've made any mistakes.
Please feel free to suggest ideas for future questions, but please keep in mind that no further phonological/phonetic questions are being accepted at this time.
(Ending notes copied from previous round's post.)
Spoiler:
Well, actually, since we'll be going down from 4 moods to 3, which is our goal, this round, certain statements here may apply only to cases.
Notes (same as the last round):
Spoiler:
New questions:
108. The vocative case will be the first to be "lost". Which case should we merge it with?
a). Nominative.
b). Accusative.
c). Instrumental.
d). Dative.
e). Ablative.
f). Genitive.
g). Locative.
109. We'll be retaining three of PIE's cases. Which of the following should be lost next?
a). Nominative.
b). Accusative.
c). Instrumental.
d). Dative.
e). Ablative.
f). Genitive.
g). Locative.
110. The optative mood will be "lost". Which mood should we merge it with?
a). Indicative.
b). Imperative.
c). Subjunctive.
As usual, we're using approval voting, and please let me know if I've made any mistakes.
Please feel free to suggest ideas for future questions, but please keep in mind that no further phonological/phonetic questions are being accepted at this time.
(Ending notes copied from previous round's post.)
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
108: b / e / g
109: e / g
110: c
109: e / g
110: c
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
108)a
109)b
110)c
109)b
110)c
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
108. f
109. ceg
110. bc
109. ceg
110. bc
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
Last call for voting in this round.
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
Results for Questions #108-110:
Notes (same as the last two rounds):
We'll be voting on which moods and cases to keep in the coming weeks, among other things. When an option says something like "get rid of the nominative", that doesn't mean we won't have any way to express the agent of a transitive verb or the experiencer of an intransitive verb; instead, it means that PIE's nominative case endings will no longer be used, and another case/another set of endings will take on the usages of the nominative case in addition to its own former usages. Hopefully that makes sense.
I'd strongly suggest looking up reconstructed verb and noun inflection charts for PIE to see which sets of endings you prefer. When the time comes for us to decide which cases and moods to merge, we will have to decide whether to use the first case or mood's endings, the second case or mood's endings, or a combination of the two sets. Hopefully that makes sense as well.
Inflection charts for verbs and nouns in PIE can be found on the Wikipedia pages I just linked to, among other places, although I can't guarantee they're the most reliable, complete, accessible, etc.
New questions:
111. The ablative case will be the next to be lost. Which case should we merge it with?
a). Nominative.
b). Accusative.
c). Instrumental.
d). Dative.
e). Genitive.
f). Locative.
112. We'll be retaining three of PIE's cases. Which of the following should be lost next?
a). Nominative.
b). Accusative.
c). Instrumental.
d). Dative.
e). Genitive.
f). Locative.
113. The optative mood is being merged with the subjunctive mood. Which mood's verb endings should be used after this merger?
a). We should continue using the subjunctive's verb endings alone.
b). We should now use the optative's verb endings alone.
c). We should use some sort of cross between the two sets of verb endings.
114. The vocative case is being merged with the accusative case. Which case's noun endings should be used after this merger?
a). We should continue using the accusative's noun endings alone.
b). We should now use the vocative's noun endings alone.
c). We should use some sort of cross between the two sets of noun endings.
As usual, we're using approval voting, and please let me know if I've made any mistakes.
Please feel free to suggest ideas for future questions, but please keep in mind that no further phonological/phonetic questions are being accepted at this time.
(Ending notes copied from previous two rounds' posts.)
Spoiler:
We'll be voting on which moods and cases to keep in the coming weeks, among other things. When an option says something like "get rid of the nominative", that doesn't mean we won't have any way to express the agent of a transitive verb or the experiencer of an intransitive verb; instead, it means that PIE's nominative case endings will no longer be used, and another case/another set of endings will take on the usages of the nominative case in addition to its own former usages. Hopefully that makes sense.
I'd strongly suggest looking up reconstructed verb and noun inflection charts for PIE to see which sets of endings you prefer. When the time comes for us to decide which cases and moods to merge, we will have to decide whether to use the first case or mood's endings, the second case or mood's endings, or a combination of the two sets. Hopefully that makes sense as well.
Inflection charts for verbs and nouns in PIE can be found on the Wikipedia pages I just linked to, among other places, although I can't guarantee they're the most reliable, complete, accessible, etc.
New questions:
111. The ablative case will be the next to be lost. Which case should we merge it with?
a). Nominative.
b). Accusative.
c). Instrumental.
d). Dative.
e). Genitive.
f). Locative.
112. We'll be retaining three of PIE's cases. Which of the following should be lost next?
a). Nominative.
b). Accusative.
c). Instrumental.
d). Dative.
e). Genitive.
f). Locative.
113. The optative mood is being merged with the subjunctive mood. Which mood's verb endings should be used after this merger?
a). We should continue using the subjunctive's verb endings alone.
b). We should now use the optative's verb endings alone.
c). We should use some sort of cross between the two sets of verb endings.
114. The vocative case is being merged with the accusative case. Which case's noun endings should be used after this merger?
a). We should continue using the accusative's noun endings alone.
b). We should now use the vocative's noun endings alone.
c). We should use some sort of cross between the two sets of noun endings.
As usual, we're using approval voting, and please let me know if I've made any mistakes.
Please feel free to suggest ideas for future questions, but please keep in mind that no further phonological/phonetic questions are being accepted at this time.
(Ending notes copied from previous two rounds' posts.)
-
- korean
- Posts: 10373
- Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
- Location: UTC-04:00
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
111: b / f
112: f
113: a
114: a
112: f
113: a
114: a
- druneragarsh
- sinic
- Posts: 430
- Joined: 01 Sep 2015 15:56
- Location: Finland
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
111. E
112. D
113. C (complexification forever!)
114. C
112. D
113. C (complexification forever!)
114. C
drúne, rá gárš
drun-VOC I.ERG read
List of conlangs with links!
Refer to me with any sex-neutral (or feminine) 3s pronoun, either from English (no singular they please, zie etc are okay) or from one of your conlangs!
CWS
drun-VOC I.ERG read
List of conlangs with links!
Refer to me with any sex-neutral (or feminine) 3s pronoun, either from English (no singular they please, zie etc are okay) or from one of your conlangs!
CWS
Re: Indo-European diachronic collablang
111) e
112) f
113) c
114) a
112) f
113) c
114) a