Page 5 of 11

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 08 Jul 2020 09:21
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.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 08 Jul 2020 11:27
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?

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 08 Jul 2020 17:30
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!

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 09 Jul 2020 07:08
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]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 09 Jul 2020 23:02
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.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 10 Jul 2020 15:43
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.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 11 Jul 2020 09:59
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.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 20 Aug 2020 03:58
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?

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 20 Aug 2020 06:14
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.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 20 Aug 2020 07:16
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)

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 20 Aug 2020 20:58
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?

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 20 Aug 2020 21:05
by Omzinesý
Linguifex wrote: 20 Aug 2020 03:58
? If the latter, should I keep /θ/ ð?
I usually prefer Saami style đ.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 02 Oct 2020 03:58
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?

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 14 Oct 2020 17:34
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.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 03 Dec 2020 22:16
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.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 04 Dec 2020 08:20
by Creyeditor
What would be the resulting inventory?

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 04 Dec 2020 08:44
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.

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 07 Dec 2020 00:02
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)

Re: Yay or Nay?

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

/tˤ dˤ sˤ nˤ/ > /ʈ ɖ ʂ ɳ/

Re: Yay or Nay?

Posted: 20 Dec 2020 20:42
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.