Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1712
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

Currently thinking about making a Slavic language. My idea right now is for one that maintained Greek as its liturgical language rather than Church Slavonic and was in general more closely connected to Greece. Grammar would be similar to the Southern Slavic languages but vocabulary and phonology would be much closer to Greek than any real Slavic language.
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 3219
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý »

All4Ɇn wrote: 08 Jul 2020 09:21 Currently thinking about making a Slavic language. My idea right now is for one that maintained Greek as its liturgical language rather than Church Slavonic and was in general more closely connected to Greece. Grammar would be similar to the Southern Slavic languages but vocabulary and phonology would be much closer to Greek than any real Slavic language.
I don't see you asking anything but it sounds like an interesting idea.
Maybe series of voiced and voiceless spirants?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 8350
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar »

All4Ɇn wrote: 08 Jul 2020 09:21 Currently thinking about making a Slavic language. My idea right now is for one that maintained Greek as its liturgical language rather than Church Slavonic and was in general more closely connected to Greece. Grammar would be similar to the Southern Slavic languages but vocabulary and phonology would be much closer to Greek than any real Slavic language.
[+1] I'd say go for it!
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1712
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

Omzinesý wrote: 08 Jul 2020 11:27 I don't see you asking anything but it sounds like an interesting idea.
Maybe series of voiced and voiceless spirants?
Sorry, I was actually asking if people thought it would be an interesting idea. [xD] Planning on it having both /θ/ and /ð/. /ð/ is easy to derive phonologically. /θ/ though might have to be reserved for loans.
shimobaatar wrote: 08 Jul 2020 17:30[+1] I'd say go for it!
[tick]
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5948
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore »

Questions about kinds of adverbs.

Backdrop to backdrop; maybe skippable.
Spoiler:
My conlang Arpien has a completely specified context-free generative grammar; and not much else so far.
It has 102 parts-of-speech or word-classes or lexical categories.
22 of them can be phrases; I label them with the capital Roman letters A thru V.
They’re all open classes. The earlier in the alphabet they come, the opener and larger they are.
The other 80 classes are not branchable; they can’t be phrases. So they’re more closed and smaller than classes A thru V.
I label them classes 1 thru 80.

Only classes A and B truly correspond to any traditional phrase-classes.
A are clauses and sentences.
B are nominals, nominal phrases, nouns, noun phrases, pronominals, pronominal phrases, pronouns, ... etc.

The grammar has 100 rules.
The way I define “head” and “branching”, they’re all head-final and left-branching.
Each part-of-speech, except A and B, is the head of exactly one rule.
It determines both what part-of-speech the other component is, and what part-of-speech the whole phrase is.
Backdrop to questions: come back to read it if you want to, or skip it if it’s too long.

Only classes A thru F are “modifiable”, in the sense that, the grammar permits speakers to produce a phrase of one of those six classes, from another phrase of the same class, followed by a word of a particular class.
Explicitly: the following rules are included:
A —> A + C
B —> B + F
C —> C + 33
D —> D + 38
E —> E + 43
F —> F + 48

Class C includes all ad-clausal adverbs and ad-sentential adverbs.
Class F includes all adjectives.
Class 33 includes those ad-adverbal adverbs which can modify an ad-sentential adverb; some of them will be intensifiers.

Class D includes all the one-participant verbs, because of the production rule
A —> B + D
So class 38 includes all those ad-verbal adverbs that can modify monovalent verbs.

I don’t know what to call class E; I think it will include complementizers?
It’s the head of the rule
B —> A + E
Using the definition “an adverb is any modifier that can modify something that isn’t a noun-phrase”,
class 43 must be a class of some sort of adverb; but I haven’t yet been able to come up with any intuition about them.

Class 48 includes all the ad-adjectival adverbs. Some of them will be intensifiers.

......

Finally, the question:

I’m pretty sure there are natlangs that make ad-verbal adverbs and ad-adjectival adverbs two distinct parts-of-speech.

How strange, or unnaturalistic, or unrealistic, is it for my conlang to have six distinct categories of modifiers like this?
Adjectives, sentential adverbs, ad-verbal adverbs, ad-adjectival adverbs, ad-adverbal adverbs, and whatever class 43 turns out to be?

______________________________________________________________

All the open classes and their rules:
Spoiler:
A clauses
B nouns
A —> A + C clausal adverbs
A —> B + D monovalent verbs
B —> A + E complementizers; an open class?
B —> B + F adjectives
C —> A + G clausal conjunctions, including subordinators and FANBOYS.
C —> B + H one kind of postposition or case-marker; resulting phrase can modify an entire sentence or clause
D —> A + I what turns a clause into a one-place verb?
D —> B + J bivalent verbs
E —> A + K don’t know yet
E —> B + L don’t know yet
F —> A + M relativizer
F —> B + N postposition creating a phrase that can modify a noun; for example, a genitive postposition.
A —> C + O a “verb” that takes an adverb as its argument?
A —> D + P “ “ “ “ “ verb “ “ “
A —> E + Q “ “ “ “ “ complementizer “ “ “
A —> F + R “ “ “ “ “ adjective “ “ “
B —> C + S something that nominalises clausal adverbs
B —> D + T nominalizers that nominalize one-place verbs
B —> E + U nominalizers that nominalize complementizers! Wow!
B —> F + V nominalizers that nominalize adjectives; like maybe “-ness” particles.

Classes 1-16 are ways of making clauses about classes G-V respectively.
Classes 17-32 are ways of nominalising classes G-V.

Classes 33-48 can make phrases of classes C-F out of a word or phrase of classes C-F.

Classes 49-64 can make phrases of classes G-V out of clauses (class A).
Classes 65-80 can make phrases of classes G-V out of nouns. I suppose that makes many (or most?) of them postpositions of various sorts.
But because of the production rule
J —> B + 68
class 68 is the small closed class of trivalent verbs. (e.g. give, show, tell).
(Unless I goofed up!)
Edit: BTW in case you didn’t already figure it out, Arpien is an experimental engelang.
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4395
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor »

That's a yay from me. It is realistic to me, even if it is not naturalistic in the strict sense. I think I already talked to you in the past about ad-sentential and ad-verbal adverbs and that they are syntactically (and maybe morphologically) different in some languages. I also read something on ad-adjectival adverbs the other day and that they pattern with degree words in some languages as a class. I am not so sure ad-adverbal adverbs but you are just continuing a concept that has been started by natlangs. Regarding class E, wouldn't existential copulas also be part of that class?

B —> A + E

B is a full clause and A is a noun (phrase). If E is not an intransitive verb, it could still be some more functional stuff like a copula or something. Why should class E include complementizers? I don't really get that.

Btw, do you have an Arpien grammar written up somewhere? I guess I am now at a point in my conlanging career where I could read through it and give you comments if you'd like. If it is a pdf, that would be perfect.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5948
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore »

Btw, do you have an Arpien grammar written up somewhere? I guess I am now at a point in my conlanging career where I could read through it and give you comments if you'd like. If it is a pdf, that would be perfect.
I did, but the keepers of the site deleted it because they said
1. I didn’t have enough vocabulary and
2. I didn’t update it often enough.

I’ll have to write it up again. When I do I’ll try to remember to send you a copy. That way maybe it won’t get annihilated again.
User avatar
Man in Space
roman
roman
Posts: 1030
Joined: 03 Aug 2012 08:07
Location: Ohio

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Man in Space »

So the CT consonants look like this:

/m n ŋ/ m n ĝ
/t k/ t k
/θ s ɬ x h/ ð s ł g h
/ɹ l ʕ/ r l ʕ

Should I change this to…

/m n ŋ/ m n ĝ
/t k/ t k
/θ s ɬ x h/ z s ś ḫ h
/ɹ l ʕ/ r l g

? If the latter, should I keep /θ/ ð?
Twin Aster megathread

AVDIO · VIDEO · DISCO

CC = Common Caber
CK = Classical Khaya
CT = Classical Ĝate n Tim Ar
Kg = Kgáweq'
PO = Proto-O
PTa = Proto-Taltic
PTO = Proto-Tim Ar-O
STK = Sisỏk Tlar Kyanà
Tm = Təmattwəspwaypksma
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2994
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by elemtilas »

Linguifex wrote: 20 Aug 2020 03:58 So the CT consonants look like this:

/m n ŋ/ m n ĝ
/t k/ t k
/θ s ɬ x h/ ð s ł g h
/ɹ l ʕ/ r l ʕ

Should I change this to…

/m n ŋ/ m n ĝ
/t k/ t k
/θ s ɬ x h/ z s ś ḫ h
/ɹ l ʕ/ r l g

? If the latter, should I keep /θ/ ð?
I've used Z for /θ/ ~ /ð/ in orthography before, so doesn't bother me or look unnatural. pozeor, mazoer, that kind of thing. Ð for /θ/ looks worse to me --- but that's clearly a matter of personal aesthetics, as in reality, it's no worse a crime against orthography than Z!

I also used to use ḫ for /x/ (in Talarian), but I'm pretty sure I changed that. Too fiddly. And, since it's a romanisation and not a matter of native orthography, no harm no foul.

I'd say a qualified yea. I'd definitely nòt use G for /x/. I can see the logic behind ś, as it kind of sounds sibilanty.
Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 891
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine »

I always find <ð> (or <þ> for that matter) in a non Germanic conlang to be a bit odd. Though some languages make it work (i.e. Boral)
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucascus.
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1689
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by loglorn »

I would, particularly, use <z s ł x h> <r l g> for the last two rows.

So a bit of both. And <x>. Have you forgotten it or do you just dislike it?
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 3219
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý »

Linguifex wrote: 20 Aug 2020 03:58
? If the latter, should I keep /θ/ ð?
I usually prefer Saami style đ.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3934
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 »

As I asked earlier in the Questions thread, I have a language that develops glottalized vowels in various positions. I don’t particularly want glottalization to remain in the language, but I also don’t want to convert it to tone, at least not yet. What could I do with the glottalized vowels?

For context, the vowels are /a e i o u eː iː oː uː/, all of which can be glottalized to my knowledge. Some example syllables with the glottalized vowels:
/deːˀgs/
/diˀg/
/doːˀŋ/
/heˀt/

For the most part the vowels were tense in the language, (the short vowels were more lax than the long vowels though). I was sort of thinking that the glottalized vowels could diphthongize.

Right now I'm leaning towards a shift like below (with more changes happening later)
eːˀ iːˀ oːˀ uːˀ → ɛɯ̯ ɜɪ̯ ɔə̯ oʊ̯
aˀ eˀ iˀ oˀ uˀ → æ ɛ ɪ ə ɔ
(all others held constant)

My other option is to primarily focus on centering/rising diphthongs
eːˀ iːˀ oːˀ uːˀ → ɛə̯ iːə̯ ɔə̯ uːə̯
aˀ eˀ iˀ oˀ uˀ → æ ɛ ɪ ə ʊ

(all others held constant)

I could also have the glottalized vowels be more conservative against the unglottalized vowels
eːˀ iːˀ oːˀ uːˀ → ɛː ɪː ɔː ʊː
aˀ eˀ iˀ oˀ uˀ → æ ɛ ɪ ɔ ʊ
eː iː oː uː → eɯ̯ ɜɪ̯ ɔʊ̯ oʊ̯
a e i o u → eə̯ eɪ̯ i o u

So which of the above is preferable?
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

The SqwedgePad
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 8350
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar »

qwed117 wrote: 02 Oct 2020 03:58 eːˀ iːˀ oːˀ uːˀ → ɛə̯ iːə̯ ɔə̯ uːə̯
aˀ eˀ iˀ oˀ uˀ → æ ɛ ɪ ə ʊ
If you haven't already decided, I think I personally like this option the best.
ɶʙ ɞʛ
sinic
sinic
Posts: 430
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ »

Is a Hawai'ian-style consonant shift possible in a larger inventory? e.g. something that's relatively standard European?

/m n ɲ ŋ/
/p b t d t͡s d͡z t͡ʃ d͡ʒ (c ɟ) k g ʔ/
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ (ç) x ɣ h/
/w l (ʎ) r j/

/k g x ɣ/ > /ʔ ∅ h ∅/
/t d θ ð/ (>/t̺ d̺ θ̺ ð̺/ > /ʈ ɖ ʂ ʐ/) > /k g x ɣ/,
/t͡s d͡z/ (> /t̻͡θ̻ d̻͡ð̻/) > /t d/
/s z/, nasals, and palatals are unaffected. As far as I know, /n l/ were not part of the original shift in Hawai'ian, but /s/ may have gone to /x/ with /t/ > /k/, and then /x/ > /h/ later.
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4395
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor »

What would be the resulting inventory?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
Porphyrogenitos
sinic
sinic
Posts: 353
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 08:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Porphyrogenitos »

/m n ɲ ŋ/
/p b t d t͡s d͡z t͡ʃ d͡ʒ (c ɟ) k g ʔ/
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ (ç) x ɣ h/
/w l (ʎ) r j/

/k g x ɣ/ > /ʔ ∅ h ∅/
/t d θ ð/ (>/t̺ d̺ θ̺ ð̺/ > /ʈ ɖ ʂ ʐ/) > /k g x ɣ/,
/t͡s d͡z/ (> /t̻͡θ̻ d̻͡ð̻/) > /t d/
/s z/, nasals, and palatals are unaffected. As far as I know, /n l/ were not part of the original shift in Hawai'ian, but /s/ may have gone to /x/ with /t/ > /k/, and then /x/ > /h/ later.
Eh, I hate to be a killjoy, but an unconditional t > k > ʔ shift has only ever been attested in Austronesian languages with small consonant inventories (Hawai'ian isn't the only one - and I believe all the others were in the Oceanic branch as well). Most of the rest of these look fine on their own, though I don't know if unconditional ʈ ɖ > k g has ever been attested, and I would hazard a guess that it isn't likely.

Ultimately, it is a conlang, so if you truly want to do it, then do it, but t > k > ʔ in an inventory like this isn't actually part of the range of known sound changes in human languages.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3934
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 »

Porphyrogenitos wrote: 04 Dec 2020 08:44
/m n ɲ ŋ/
/p b t d t͡s d͡z t͡ʃ d͡ʒ (c ɟ) k g ʔ/
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ (ç) x ɣ h/
/w l (ʎ) r j/

/k g x ɣ/ > /ʔ ∅ h ∅/
/t d θ ð/ (>/t̺ d̺ θ̺ ð̺/ > /ʈ ɖ ʂ ʐ/) > /k g x ɣ/,
/t͡s d͡z/ (> /t̻͡θ̻ d̻͡ð̻/) > /t d/
/s z/, nasals, and palatals are unaffected. As far as I know, /n l/ were not part of the original shift in Hawai'ian, but /s/ may have gone to /x/ with /t/ > /k/, and then /x/ > /h/ later.
Eh, I hate to be a killjoy, but an unconditional t > k > ʔ shift has only ever been attested in Austronesian languages with small consonant inventories (Hawai'ian isn't the only one - and I believe all the others were in the Oceanic branch as well). Most of the rest of these look fine on their own, though I don't know if unconditional ʈ ɖ > k g has ever been attested, and I would hazard a guess that it isn't likely.

Ultimately, it is a conlang, so if you truly want to do it, then do it, but t > k > ʔ in an inventory like this isn't actually part of the range of known sound changes in human languages.
It doesn't necessarily need to all happen all at once. If you imagine that g >ɣ and then ɣ > ∅ is the first step, then you've already lost two phones. I'd obviously imagine that certain contrasts probably wouldn't be readily retained, like the /x h/ contrast (unless /x/ becomes a preuvular trill). I'm not quite sure exactly what 'caused' the t > k shift in Hawai'ian other than the lack of /k/ from the earlier glottalization, so it doesn't seem weird to assert that the development would be too awkward. (Also, TMK, the Hawai'ian t > k shift hadn't completed by the time Europeans first arrived to Hawai'i so the change isn't exactly weird. That being said I think I'd expect the palatals to gutturalized before the alveolars)
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

The SqwedgePad
ɶʙ ɞʛ
sinic
sinic
Posts: 430
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ »

Is this attested or realistic?

/tˤ dˤ sˤ nˤ/ > /ʈ ɖ ʂ ɳ/
User avatar
WeepingElf
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by WeepingElf »

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote: 20 Dec 2020 20:20 Is this attested or realistic?

/tˤ dˤ sˤ nˤ/ > /ʈ ɖ ʂ ɳ/
I am not sure. I know of no natlang precedent, but I do have considered just this idea for a conlang.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Post Reply