(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
There's no reason you can't just have a plain transitive verb for 'want', just as you needn't have the same verb for wanting sth. and for wanting to do sth. The fact that in English these are the same, and that English uses a verb for having, means that "I want the bird" and "I want to have the bird" are synonymous and look like the former could be just a shortened form of the latter - but other languages don't have to work like that.
A third option, however, is to neither have a transitive verb of wanting NOR to have a verb of wanting with a verbal object, but just to treat wanting, like having, locatively. This is what Irish does, in lots of different ways!
BIG CAVEAT: I don't speak Irish. I believe the following constructions all exist, but some may not be grammatically possible with birds (they may need mass nouns or abstract nouns), they may certainly not be idiomatic in this situation, and I may of course also have made stupid mistakes in the examples, because Irish is a language is which no damn word of an example is straightforward...
The way to express wanting that seems to be taught as the default uses the verb teastaigh, etymologically "to be lacking" [originally to-outside-stand, iirc], with the preposition ó, "from", with the wanted thing as the subject:
Teastaíonn éan ó an gcailín
is_lacking bird from the girl.DAT
lit: the bird is_lacking from the girl
Alternatively, you can use the verb of adjectival and prepositional predication and use is_lacking as a verbal noun:
Tá éan ag teastáil ó an gcailín
is bird at being_lacking_-ness from the girl.DAT
lit: the bird is at lacking from the girl
You can also use the first construction but with the predicating verb. Some say that this is effectively the second construction with the verbal noun elided as clear from context, but it could also just be a replacement of the verb, by analogy with other prepositional verbs:
Tá éan ó an gcailín
No, I don't know when you'd use each version. Everybody asks (at least about the first vs third, the second seems to be more marked these days?), but I've never seen anyone give a good example of the difference.
All three can be translated as either "the girl wants a bird" or "the girl needs a bird".
Another option is apparently with díth, "loss" or "want":
Tá éan de dhíth ó an gcailín
Is bird of want from the girl.DAT
However, it's also possible to make the wanter into the subject, using the verbal noun of iarr, "request, demand, seek for, expect":
Tá an cailín ag iarraidh éan
is the girl with demand bird
lit: the girl is at demanding bird
This seems to often be more actively demanding (it's apparently used for begging?), but in other cases the demand can be latent (eg 'do you have a demand for X?' is apparently a way of asking if someone wants X).
Another possibility is to describe deficiency more directly:
Tá éan in easnamh ó an gcailín
is bird in shortage from the girl.DAT
lit: a bird is in shortage from the girl
[I've seen this one with 'a leaf is in shortage from the tree', so it can be used with concrete countable nouns]
Or you can make the deficiency itself the subject:
tá easnamh éin ar an gcailín
is shortage bird.GEN on the girl.DAT
lit: (a) shortage of bird is on the girl
[maybe? Maybe that needs a mass noun?]
Or apparently you can also lament the lack of sufficiency:
?Níl a sáith éin ag an gcailín [I think!?]
is.NEG her sufficiency bird.GEN at the girl.DAT
lit: She has not had her fill of bird
[N.B. I've only seen examples of this construction with mass nouns. I don't know if it's actually possible with count nouns, and if so whether it would use the genitive plural or not?]
However, apparently the normal polite conversational way is to instead use a conditional copula (different from the predicative verb above):
Ba mhaith le an gcailín éan
is.COND good with the girl.DAT bird
lit: A bird would be good with the girl
(this is more like "the girl would like..." than "the girl wants...")
It's slightly possible there may also be a construction with fonn, "mood":
??Tá fonn éan ar an gcailín
Is mood bird on the girl.DAT
lit: the girl is in the mood for a bird
...but I can only find examples with verbal nouns, so it may not be possible with concrete things like birds. However, I wonder whether you could say:
Tá fonn sealbhú éin ar an gcailín
Is mood possession bird.GEN on the girl.DAT
lit: The girls is in the mood to possess/acquire a bird
...maybe?
Finally, if the girl used to have the bird (and maybe even if she didn't?) there's also a fun construction:
Airaíonn an cailín uaithi éan
Feel the girl from.3SF bird
Lit: the girl feels from her the bird
Less lit: the girl misses the bird.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, please remember again the caveat that I don't speak Irish; no guarantee is made of the exact grammaticality of the above, and certainly I've little idea when one construction should be used rather than another. I'm just trying to demonstrate the different constructions Irish can use to express wanting something, any of which might be used in a conlang.
A third option, however, is to neither have a transitive verb of wanting NOR to have a verb of wanting with a verbal object, but just to treat wanting, like having, locatively. This is what Irish does, in lots of different ways!
BIG CAVEAT: I don't speak Irish. I believe the following constructions all exist, but some may not be grammatically possible with birds (they may need mass nouns or abstract nouns), they may certainly not be idiomatic in this situation, and I may of course also have made stupid mistakes in the examples, because Irish is a language is which no damn word of an example is straightforward...
The way to express wanting that seems to be taught as the default uses the verb teastaigh, etymologically "to be lacking" [originally to-outside-stand, iirc], with the preposition ó, "from", with the wanted thing as the subject:
Teastaíonn éan ó an gcailín
is_lacking bird from the girl.DAT
lit: the bird is_lacking from the girl
Alternatively, you can use the verb of adjectival and prepositional predication and use is_lacking as a verbal noun:
Tá éan ag teastáil ó an gcailín
is bird at being_lacking_-ness from the girl.DAT
lit: the bird is at lacking from the girl
You can also use the first construction but with the predicating verb. Some say that this is effectively the second construction with the verbal noun elided as clear from context, but it could also just be a replacement of the verb, by analogy with other prepositional verbs:
Tá éan ó an gcailín
No, I don't know when you'd use each version. Everybody asks (at least about the first vs third, the second seems to be more marked these days?), but I've never seen anyone give a good example of the difference.
All three can be translated as either "the girl wants a bird" or "the girl needs a bird".
Another option is apparently with díth, "loss" or "want":
Tá éan de dhíth ó an gcailín
Is bird of want from the girl.DAT
However, it's also possible to make the wanter into the subject, using the verbal noun of iarr, "request, demand, seek for, expect":
Tá an cailín ag iarraidh éan
is the girl with demand bird
lit: the girl is at demanding bird
This seems to often be more actively demanding (it's apparently used for begging?), but in other cases the demand can be latent (eg 'do you have a demand for X?' is apparently a way of asking if someone wants X).
Another possibility is to describe deficiency more directly:
Tá éan in easnamh ó an gcailín
is bird in shortage from the girl.DAT
lit: a bird is in shortage from the girl
[I've seen this one with 'a leaf is in shortage from the tree', so it can be used with concrete countable nouns]
Or you can make the deficiency itself the subject:
tá easnamh éin ar an gcailín
is shortage bird.GEN on the girl.DAT
lit: (a) shortage of bird is on the girl
[maybe? Maybe that needs a mass noun?]
Or apparently you can also lament the lack of sufficiency:
?Níl a sáith éin ag an gcailín [I think!?]
is.NEG her sufficiency bird.GEN at the girl.DAT
lit: She has not had her fill of bird
[N.B. I've only seen examples of this construction with mass nouns. I don't know if it's actually possible with count nouns, and if so whether it would use the genitive plural or not?]
However, apparently the normal polite conversational way is to instead use a conditional copula (different from the predicative verb above):
Ba mhaith le an gcailín éan
is.COND good with the girl.DAT bird
lit: A bird would be good with the girl
(this is more like "the girl would like..." than "the girl wants...")
It's slightly possible there may also be a construction with fonn, "mood":
??Tá fonn éan ar an gcailín
Is mood bird on the girl.DAT
lit: the girl is in the mood for a bird
...but I can only find examples with verbal nouns, so it may not be possible with concrete things like birds. However, I wonder whether you could say:
Tá fonn sealbhú éin ar an gcailín
Is mood possession bird.GEN on the girl.DAT
lit: The girls is in the mood to possess/acquire a bird
...maybe?
Finally, if the girl used to have the bird (and maybe even if she didn't?) there's also a fun construction:
Airaíonn an cailín uaithi éan
Feel the girl from.3SF bird
Lit: the girl feels from her the bird
Less lit: the girl misses the bird.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, please remember again the caveat that I don't speak Irish; no guarantee is made of the exact grammaticality of the above, and certainly I've little idea when one construction should be used rather than another. I'm just trying to demonstrate the different constructions Irish can use to express wanting something, any of which might be used in a conlang.
- Arayaz
- roman
- Posts: 1223
- Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
- Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
- Contact:
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I have a language with the following phonology and romanization:
/p b t d k ɡ ʔ/ <p b t d k g '>
/n/ <n>
/f s x ħ h/ <f s x ? h>
/r l/ <r l>
Is <xh> for [ħ] a bad idea, or does it make sense? I've been debating it for a while. I like it, but I don't know if it's attested anywhere.
/p b t d k ɡ ʔ/ <p b t d k g '>
/n/ <n>
/f s x ħ h/ <f s x ? h>
/r l/ <r l>
Is <xh> for [ħ] a bad idea, or does it make sense? I've been debating it for a while. I like it, but I don't know if it's attested anywhere.
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang
Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage
she/her
Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage
she/her
- GoshDiggityDangit
- greek
- Posts: 549
- Joined: 18 Dec 2018 21:27
- Location: Oakwood OH, USA
- Contact:
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
if you like it, then it doesn't really matter if it's attested or not. it's a perfectly good scheme, so if you like it, use it.
“Like billowing clouds, Like the incessant gurgle of the brook,
The longing of the spirit can never be stilled.” ― St. Hildegard von Bingen
The longing of the spirit can never be stilled.” ― St. Hildegard von Bingen
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I agree with GDD above me. I don't know whether it is attested, but I'm not sure if that's a relevant point in the case of a romanization, unless you're intentionally trying to imitate or suggest an existing language. If you like it, I don't really see a reason not to use it.Üdj wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 15:42 I have a language with the following phonology and romanization:
/p b t d k ɡ ʔ/ <p b t d k g '>
/n/ <n>
/f s x ħ h/ <f s x ? h>
/r l/ <r l>
Is <xh> for [ħ] a bad idea, or does it make sense? I've been debating it for a while. I like it, but I don't know if it's attested anywhere.
Personally, I try to avoid digraphs because it requires more learning and attention on part of the reader, and in your case could lead to more confusion since you already have <x> and <h> as separate graphemes. Moreso, since your phonology is not too big, other letters are available, e.g. <j,q,ç> seem good enough matches to me. Of course, you could also exchange one of <x,h> to stand for /ħ/ and replace them with the new one instead.
Those are just my thoughts however - I don't know the extended context and what your goals are for the language or the romanization. The choice is yours, really.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
You don't need direct attestation for everything and and <x> is a notably flexible grapheme so if you like <xh> go ahead. That said, i'd personally use <q> since you have no other digraphs and i like how that looks.Üdj wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022 15:42 I have a language with the following phonology and romanization:
/p b t d k ɡ ʔ/ <p b t d k g '>
/n/ <n>
/f s x ħ h/ <f s x ? h>
/r l/ <r l>
Is <xh> for [ħ] a bad idea, or does it make sense? I've been debating it for a while. I like it, but I don't know if it's attested anywhere.
- Arayaz
- roman
- Posts: 1223
- Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
- Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
- Contact:
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Thanks!
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang
Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage
she/her
Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage
she/her
-
- cuneiform
- Posts: 172
- Joined: 24 Oct 2022 04:34
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Minor aesthetic question:
I'm undecided between sets of clusters. The only obstruent-obstruent and nasal-nasal clusters involve a bilabial and a velar. The question is which should come first cuz I only want one possibility. There's approximately no morphological consequences.
I'm undecided between sets of clusters. The only obstruent-obstruent and nasal-nasal clusters involve a bilabial and a velar. The question is which should come first cuz I only want one possibility. There's approximately no morphological consequences.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6352
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Their POAs should move from the front of the mouth to the back: so bilabial before velar.Knox Adjacent wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022 06:41 Minor aesthetic question:
I'm undecided between sets of clusters. The only obstruent-obstruent and nasal-nasal clusters involve a bilabial and a velar. The question is which should come first cuz I only want one possibility. There's approximately no morphological consequences.
in my opinion.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Flipping a coin, I also promote/pk/.Knox Adjacent wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022 06:41 Minor aesthetic question:
I'm undecided between sets of clusters. The only obstruent-obstruent and nasal-nasal clusters involve a bilabial and a velar. The question is which should come first cuz I only want one possibility. There's approximately no morphological consequences.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
At least according to some analyses of PIE "thorn clusters", they had a sound change tk -> tsk.
How common is a sound change where a fricative is added between two stops?
How common is a sound change where a fricative is added between two stops?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
-
- cuneiform
- Posts: 172
- Joined: 24 Oct 2022 04:34
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Thanks, bilabials first it is.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Not very familiar with the surrounding environment where this happened but it'd seem to be a sonority thing. Plosive+Plosive clusters often lenite into Plosive+[something more sonorous] in order to better conform to the sonority hierarchy and affricates are more sonorous than plosives.
I won't say that case in particular is common but i'd say its one possible outcome of a very common sound change process. I also wouldn't interpret it as "adding a fricative between two stops" at least not at first, the affricate may very well be split later.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Actually I just noticed the plosive-fricative-plosive cluster there (yes it may be an affricate in PIE, or maybe didn't even exist). I like it phonologically.
All examples that come to my mind are on the morphemic border: tax-ed, mag-st.
Then I started thinking about sound changes creating it. I haven't heard of epenthetic fricatives between plosives.
All examples that come to my mind are on the morphemic border: tax-ed, mag-st.
Then I started thinking about sound changes creating it. I haven't heard of epenthetic fricatives between plosives.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
You're presumably aware, but it's worth mentioning out loud the assumed allophonic *TT > *TST rule in PIE (where *TT are any two dental stops, and S is a dental fricative of corresponding voicing).
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I feel like it's the opposite, with a tendency for "[something more sonorous] + plosive", at least word-medially, but maybe I'm biased because this has happened in Spanish at various times.loglorn wrote: ↑21 Nov 2022 01:05Not very familiar with the surrounding environment where this happened but it'd seem to be a sonority thing. Plosive+Plosive clusters often lenite into Plosive+[something more sonorous] in order to better conform to the sonority hierarchy and affricates are more sonorous than plosives.
Proto-Spanish /dg, dzg, ðg/ were on the way to merge as Old Spanish /dzg/ by the time the language shows up written "directly"(/"phonemically") in the 13th century:
Lat. jūdicāre > *[ʒuðˈgaɾ] > Old Sp. iudgar ~ iuzgar (<zg> represents [dzg], and <dg> probably [ðg])
Lat. portāticum > *[poɾˈtadgo] > Old Sp. portadgo ~ portazgo (where <dg> probably [dg])
Old Spanish /bd/ lenited to modern /wd/ or /d/ in
cibdad > ciudad (today /θjudad/)
cabdal > caudal
recabdo > recado
cobdo > codo
More recently, clusters of two plosives in learned Latin borrowings written <ct, pt, dp> (and also <Cc(i)>, <ps>) are typically pronounced with the first segment both voiced and lenited into an approximant [β ð ɣ], although there's an alternative careful / conscious pronunciation that keeps the original voicing with no lenition if voiceless. You can find this in descriptions of Madrid Spanish, and I'm from San Salvador, El Salvador, and I have the same.
actor [aɣˈtoɾ] ~ [akˈtoɾ]
pacto [ˈpaɣto] ~ [ˈpakto]
octavo [oɣˈtaβo] ~ [okˈtaβo]
reptar [reβˈtaɾ] ~ [repˈtaɾ]
adposición [aðposiˈθjon]
adquirir [aðkiˈɾiɾ]
opción [oβˈθjon] ~ [opˈθjon]
lección [leɣˈθjon] ~ [lekˈθjon]
cápsula [ˈkaβsula] ~ [ˈkapsula]
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I was being order agnostic because the order depends on the exact environment but i wasn't clear on that i guess. Nice examples though will keep in mind.Sequor wrote: ↑24 Nov 2022 02:08I feel like it's the opposite, with a tendency for "[something more sonorous] + plosive", at least word-medially, but maybe I'm biased because this has happened in Spanish at various times.loglorn wrote: ↑21 Nov 2022 01:05Not very familiar with the surrounding environment where this happened but it'd seem to be a sonority thing. Plosive+Plosive clusters often lenite into Plosive+[something more sonorous] in order to better conform to the sonority hierarchy and affricates are more sonorous than plosives.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Quick note in ciudad, Old Spanish /bd/ was probably phonetically still [βd], not [bd], indeed, cibdad comes from civitatem.
Spoiler:
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
And also of course in Germanic. This is why we have English "I buy : I bought" [PGmc *bugjo : *buhto] and "I think : I thought" [PGmc *thankijo : thanhto] - the -t suffix triggers lenition of the preceding stop (which in turn triggers loss of the nasal in the latter case).Sequor wrote: ↑24 Nov 2022 02:08I feel like it's the opposite, with a tendency for "[something more sonorous] + plosive", at least word-medially, but maybe I'm biased because this has happened in Spanish at various times.loglorn wrote: ↑21 Nov 2022 01:05Not very familiar with the surrounding environment where this happened but it'd seem to be a sonority thing. Plosive+Plosive clusters often lenite into Plosive+[something more sonorous] in order to better conform to the sonority hierarchy and affricates are more sonorous than plosives.
[actually, the rule was originally the opposite: ALL voiceless consonants become fricatives EXCEPT the final element in a cluster (so, p>f, t>th, pt>ft). But the rule continued to operate for hundreds if not thousands of years, and by the end it did work as originally stated, since the rule that TT>FT continued to operate after the T>F rule was otherwise defunct. Thus Latin "scriptum" > German "Schrift".]
- LinguoFranco
- greek
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
- Location: U.S.
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I'm toying with making a conlang with height based vowel harmony: vowels in a word must agree with each other based on height.
I came up with a pretty simple system that distinguishes high and low vowels:
High: /i ə u/
Low: /e a o/
One thing I want to do is have a neutral vowel that is opaque, so that it can block the vowel harmony in some, if not all, circumstances, but not sure what vowel I could use for that.
What do you think?
I came up with a pretty simple system that distinguishes high and low vowels:
High: /i ə u/
Low: /e a o/
One thing I want to do is have a neutral vowel that is opaque, so that it can block the vowel harmony in some, if not all, circumstances, but not sure what vowel I could use for that.
What do you think?
Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Vowels don't usually block, so my assumption would be that there's something odd about the history of that vowel. Maybe it originally had some phonation distinction?
I guess that you could produce a height harmony from ATR harmony? In that case, some sort of guttural involvement on the blocking vowel might work to block the original harmony?
I guess that you could produce a height harmony from ATR harmony? In that case, some sort of guttural involvement on the blocking vowel might work to block the original harmony?