Nay.Creyeditor wrote: ↑19 Oct 2021 19:54 Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.
Yay or Nay?
- Man in Space
- roman
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: 03 Aug 2012 08:07
- Location: Ohio
Re: Yay or Nay?
Twin Aster megathread
AVDIO · VIDEO · DISCO
CC = Common Caber
CK = Classical Khaya
CT = Classical Ĝare n Tim Ar
Kg = Kgáweq'
PB = Proto-Beheic
PO = Proto-O
PTa = Proto-Taltic
STK = Sisỏk Tlar Kyanà
Tm = Təmattwəspwaypksma
AVDIO · VIDEO · DISCO
CC = Common Caber
CK = Classical Khaya
CT = Classical Ĝare n Tim Ar
Kg = Kgáweq'
PB = Proto-Beheic
PO = Proto-O
PTa = Proto-Taltic
STK = Sisỏk Tlar Kyanà
Tm = Təmattwəspwaypksma
Re: Yay or Nay?
Yay, I find the new way more natural. I think Romance languages use the older version.Creyeditor wrote: ↑19 Oct 2021 19:54 Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5121
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Yay or Nay?
Thank you for your answers. My plan is to post something on Kobardon as soon as I have a first version of a grammar pdf.
Great Can you poimt me to some examples maybe?Omzinesý wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021 15:12Yay, I find the new way more natural. I think Romance languages use the older version.Creyeditor wrote: ↑19 Oct 2021 19:54 Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Yay or Nay?
I'm no expert of these. So I have understood.Creyeditor wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021 18:28 Thank you for your answers. My plan is to post something on Kobardon as soon as I have a first version of a grammar pdf.
Great Can you poimt me to some examples maybe?Omzinesý wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021 15:12Yay, I find the new way more natural. I think Romance languages use the older version.Creyeditor wrote: ↑19 Oct 2021 19:54 Should I reverse the order of restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives in Kobardon? Right now non-restrictive (topicalized) adjectives precede their head noun and restrictive (focused) adjectives follow their head noun.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
- Man in Space
- roman
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: 03 Aug 2012 08:07
- Location: Ohio
Re: Yay or Nay?
A few questions about Classical Ĝare n Tim Ar. First, the phonology, in its current state, is as follows:
/m n ŋ/ m n ĝ
/θ s x h/ d s ḫ h
/ɬ/ ł
/ɹ ʕ/ r g
/l/ l
/à è ø̀ ì ỳ ɤ̀ ò ɯ̀ ù/ a e ö i ü ë o ï u
/á é ǿ í ý ɤ́ ó ɯ́ ú/ á é ô í û ê ó î ú
/m̩ n̩ ŋ̩ l̩ ɹ̩/ m n ĝ l r
(C)V(C), unless V is one of the syllabic resonants, which cannot take codas
Question 1. Should I add clicks to CT? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On the one hand, CT has been more or less like this for about fifteen years. On the other hand, I absolutely love clicks and think they're underutilized and sound cool.
The following sub-questions are only applicable if the answer to Question 1 is "yes":
Question 1a. Should bilabial clicks be added to CT? The only bilabial consonant in CT currently is /m/, and I have half a mind to keep it that way. However, I'd only have clicks at three places of articulation (+ lateral alveolars) if I did this.
Question 1b. Which click series should be included? I wouldn't include a voicing distinction amongst the clicks (to fit in with the rest of the language), but I'd be inclined to include nasalized versions of the clicks as well. So something like /kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/. But would ejectives make sense with this phonology, or aspirates (given how fast and loose /h/ can behave in CT)? And/or preglottalized clicks, perhaps? What about fricated ones?
Question 1c. How should the clicks be romanized? The font family I am fond of using, TT Marxiana, doesn't support clicks (or the velar nasal), so I'd have to find alternate means. My inclination is to romanize in one of the following manners:
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ b mb z nz j nj q nq
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ k@ n@ k| n| k|| n|| k! n! k# n#
The first option reminds me of Xhosa, but doesn't get across the unusual nature of clicks (IMO anyway). The second looks egregious (especially the @ and #), but otherwise gets things across in a clear—and font-supported—manner.
Question 2. Should I axe the syllabic resonants? I don't like them much, but they do have some applicability vis-à-vis genitives and measure-words.
/m n ŋ/ m n ĝ
/θ s x h/ d s ḫ h
/ɬ/ ł
/ɹ ʕ/ r g
/l/ l
/à è ø̀ ì ỳ ɤ̀ ò ɯ̀ ù/ a e ö i ü ë o ï u
/á é ǿ í ý ɤ́ ó ɯ́ ú/ á é ô í û ê ó î ú
/m̩ n̩ ŋ̩ l̩ ɹ̩/ m n ĝ l r
(C)V(C), unless V is one of the syllabic resonants, which cannot take codas
Question 1. Should I add clicks to CT? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On the one hand, CT has been more or less like this for about fifteen years. On the other hand, I absolutely love clicks and think they're underutilized and sound cool.
The following sub-questions are only applicable if the answer to Question 1 is "yes":
Question 1a. Should bilabial clicks be added to CT? The only bilabial consonant in CT currently is /m/, and I have half a mind to keep it that way. However, I'd only have clicks at three places of articulation (+ lateral alveolars) if I did this.
Question 1b. Which click series should be included? I wouldn't include a voicing distinction amongst the clicks (to fit in with the rest of the language), but I'd be inclined to include nasalized versions of the clicks as well. So something like /kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/. But would ejectives make sense with this phonology, or aspirates (given how fast and loose /h/ can behave in CT)? And/or preglottalized clicks, perhaps? What about fricated ones?
Question 1c. How should the clicks be romanized? The font family I am fond of using, TT Marxiana, doesn't support clicks (or the velar nasal), so I'd have to find alternate means. My inclination is to romanize in one of the following manners:
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ b mb z nz j nj q nq
/kʘ ŋʘ kǀ ŋǀ kǃ ŋǃ kǁ ŋǁ kǂ ŋǂ/ k@ n@ k| n| k|| n|| k! n! k# n#
The first option reminds me of Xhosa, but doesn't get across the unusual nature of clicks (IMO anyway). The second looks egregious (especially the @ and #), but otherwise gets things across in a clear—and font-supported—manner.
Question 2. Should I axe the syllabic resonants? I don't like them much, but they do have some applicability vis-à-vis genitives and measure-words.
Twin Aster megathread
AVDIO · VIDEO · DISCO
CC = Common Caber
CK = Classical Khaya
CT = Classical Ĝare n Tim Ar
Kg = Kgáweq'
PB = Proto-Beheic
PO = Proto-O
PTa = Proto-Taltic
STK = Sisỏk Tlar Kyanà
Tm = Təmattwəspwaypksma
AVDIO · VIDEO · DISCO
CC = Common Caber
CK = Classical Khaya
CT = Classical Ĝare n Tim Ar
Kg = Kgáweq'
PB = Proto-Beheic
PO = Proto-O
PTa = Proto-Taltic
STK = Sisỏk Tlar Kyanà
Tm = Təmattwəspwaypksma
Re: Yay or Nay?
Nay.Man in Space wrote: ↑21 Feb 2022 00:28 Question 1. Should I add clicks to CT? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On the one hand, CT has been more or less like this for about fifteen years. On the other hand, I absolutely love clicks and think they're underutilized and sound cool.
Since you don't like them very much, I'm be inclined to vote "yea". Out of curiosity, though, how are they used in genitives and measure words?Man in Space wrote: ↑21 Feb 2022 00:28 Question 2. Should I axe the syllabic resonants? I don't like them much, but they do have some applicability vis-à-vis genitives and measure-words.
The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)
(she)
Re: Yay or Nay?
Can these sound changes realistically happen?
pl bl ml fl vl > t̼ d̼ n̼ ɬ̼ l̼~ɮ̼
pl bl ml fl vl > t̼ d̼ n̼ ɬ̼ l̼~ɮ̼
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: Yay or Nay?
In my probably under-informed opinion: not in just one step.
But a chain of sound-changes —— possibly as few as two? —— might accomplish it.
I hope somebody who knows more than I do comments!
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: Yay or Nay?
Should Vrkhazhian only express attributes as relativized verbs and nouns in the equative case?
rēbis satīsēzi bēdas sagiltēzes lēˀebnakki
man-MASC.ACC NFUT-be_hostile-3ms book-NEUT.ACC NFUT-be_old-3ns.REL NFUT-have\APPL-1cs>3ms
"I gave the aggressive man an old book" (lit. man who-is-hostile book who-is-old I-gave-him)
Usually:
rēbis sattîs bēdas saggalas lēˀebnakki
man-MASC.ACC hostile-MASC.ACC book-NEUT.ACC old-NEUT.ACC NFUT-have\APPL-1cs>3ms
"I gave the aggressive man an old book"
rēbis satīsēzi bēdas sagiltēzes lēˀebnakki
man-MASC.ACC NFUT-be_hostile-3ms book-NEUT.ACC NFUT-be_old-3ns.REL NFUT-have\APPL-1cs>3ms
"I gave the aggressive man an old book" (lit. man who-is-hostile book who-is-old I-gave-him)
Usually:
rēbis sattîs bēdas saggalas lēˀebnakki
man-MASC.ACC hostile-MASC.ACC book-NEUT.ACC old-NEUT.ACC NFUT-have\APPL-1cs>3ms
"I gave the aggressive man an old book"
Last edited by Ahzoh on 14 Oct 2022 09:11, edited 2 times in total.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5121
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Yay or Nay?
I don't understand. I don't see any equative in the glosses
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Yay or Nay?
In my sentences there was a noun in the equative case but I removed it since the usage of equative-cased nouns does not change whether I decide adjectives have a dedicated form or are simply relativized verbs; I will still have them either way. So demonstrating it in the sentences does not serve to emphasize the difference.
my initial thought was "well I could have three classes: nouns, verbs, and particles" and "I could modify the other classes by having adjective-like nouns and adjective-like verbs" though my issue is many-fold: the adjective-like nouns and verbs do not share the repeatable endings that so elegantly display concord between noun and modifier, the adjective-like verbs do not feel "marked" enough or they feel too "weighted" to one side, and they don't really allow for semantic shifting away from the verbal meaning (no "oppose, defy" > "opposed, defied" > "enemy")
Conversely, I now have to decide how I form my adjectives if I make the geminated stem indicate applicative voice or decide how I form the applicative if I make the geminated stem indicate deverbal adjectives.
Re: Yay or Nay?
What abaut a relative pronoun or a relativizer that agrees the head?Ahzoh wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 09:10In my sentences there was a noun in the equative case but I removed it since the usage of equative-cased nouns does not change whether I decide adjectives have a dedicated form or are simply relativized verbs; I will still have them either way. So demonstrating it in the sentences does not serve to emphasize the difference.
my initial thought was "well I could have three classes: nouns, verbs, and particles" and "I could modify the other classes by having adjective-like nouns and adjective-like verbs" though my issue is many-fold: the adjective-like nouns and verbs do not share the repeatable endings that so elegantly display concord between noun and modifier, the adjective-like verbs do not feel "marked" enough or they feel too "weighted" to one side, and they don't really allow for semantic shifting away from the verbal meaning (no "oppose, defy" > "opposed, defied" > "enemy")
Conversely, I now have to decide how I form my adjectives if I make the geminated stem indicate applicative voice or decide how I form the applicative if I make the geminated stem indicate deverbal adjectives.
I gave man.M REL.M be.aggressive book.N REL.N be.old
If adjectives are replaced by nouns, the second question is how they work as predicates.
The girl is a beauty. or The girl has beauty.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: Yay or Nay?
I have a relative pronoun, which I use mainly for clauses where the head is not the subject of the relative clause. I developed relativizing verb subject suffixes exactly so I wouldn't have to use relative pronouns for subjects of relative clausesOmzinesý wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 12:59What abaut a relative pronoun or a relativizer that agrees the head?Ahzoh wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 09:10In my sentences there was a noun in the equative case but I removed it since the usage of equative-cased nouns does not change whether I decide adjectives have a dedicated form or are simply relativized verbs; I will still have them either way. So demonstrating it in the sentences does not serve to emphasize the difference.
my initial thought was "well I could have three classes: nouns, verbs, and particles" and "I could modify the other classes by having adjective-like nouns and adjective-like verbs" though my issue is many-fold: the adjective-like nouns and verbs do not share the repeatable endings that so elegantly display concord between noun and modifier, the adjective-like verbs do not feel "marked" enough or they feel too "weighted" to one side, and they don't really allow for semantic shifting away from the verbal meaning (no "oppose, defy" > "opposed, defied" > "enemy")
Conversely, I now have to decide how I form my adjectives if I make the geminated stem indicate applicative voice or decide how I form the applicative if I make the geminated stem indicate deverbal adjectives.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: Yay or Nay?
Isn’t there a degree-of-comparison in some languages called “equative”?
Positive: High
Comparative: Higher
Equative: As high as
Superlative: Highest
If so wouldn’t it apply to all modifiers, whether adjectives or adverbs?
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: Yay or Nay?
No, it's the equative case, it basically translates to "X-like"eldin raigmore wrote: ↑14 Oct 2022 19:49Isn’t there a degree-of-comparison in some languages called “equative”?
Positive: High
Comparative: Higher
Equative: As high as
Superlative: Highest
If so wouldn’t it apply to all modifiers, whether adjectives or adverbs?
Re: Yay or Nay?
You're probably already familiar with this note on the Wikipedia page for linguolabial consonants. Based on that, the relationship between [j] & [i], and the historical shift from [pl bl fl] > [pj bj fj] in (for example) Italian, maybe you could have something like [plV] > [pjV] > [pijV] > [t̼ijV] > [t̼V]?
The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)
(she)
-
- cuneiform
- Posts: 175
- Joined: 24 Oct 2022 04:34
Re: Yay or Nay?
So I want a language with robust gender marking and have settled on eight as a good number. Typical masculine and feminine and animal and arboreal and abstract distinctions exist. The last three are inanimates based on shape: long, flat and round, but I'm unsure if this is interesting enough.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5121
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Yay or Nay?
The shape classes are interesting enough to me. Maybe syncretism in the plural could spice it up a bit.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
-
- cuneiform
- Posts: 175
- Joined: 24 Oct 2022 04:34
Re: Yay or Nay?
I had pondered reducing contrasts for object agreement. It works, thanks.
(Also a plurale tantum class, but eight and no more)
(Also a plurale tantum class, but eight and no more)
Re: Yay or Nay?
A few days later but palatalized bilabials are crosslinguistically unstable (i have a paper about it somewhere in here if anyone wants it) and there's sound changes in a few different languages that would corroborate the pl > pj > t̼ pathway, like greek pj > pt (e.g. klepto < klep-ye-ti) and the portuguese pl > t͡ʃ > ʃ.shimobaatar wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022 18:46You're probably already familiar with this note on the Wikipedia page for linguolabial consonants. Based on that, the relationship between [j] & [i], and the historical shift from [pl bl fl] > [pj bj fj] in (for example) Italian, maybe you could have something like [plV] > [pjV] > [pijV] > [t̼ijV] > [t̼V]?
So yeah those changes could happen probably.