(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 510
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by LinguoFranco »

That's the thing, though. I don't always know if I'm pronouncing it consistently and correctly.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2413
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

And indeed you aren't - learners never have a flawless native accent.

But the same would be true of any human you ask. And as Titus says, there are synthesizers (a computer speaks your language for you) but at least traditionally they've always been either very expensive, or not very good, or both.

ipa-reader.xyz is a weird but possibly useful tool. It claims to be an IPA reader, but it isn't. What it is is, essentially, a tool to tell you how a person with a given accent and language might badly pronounce some IPA. If you set it to a language with a similar phonology to your conlang, you might get something informative. However, if you set it to a language that doesn't match your conlang, it'll try to force your conlang into the phonology of that language, picking the closest equivalents, which may be amusing but is mostly useless. [eg, giving it English words and a Brazilian speaker, you get an impression of how someone with a Brazilian accent might pronounce the English words]


Bear in mind, though, that a lot of how a language sounds isn't encoded by IPA. A lot of things are too non-binary for the IPA. For instance, an affricate is a stop with a fricative release - but how long is that release compared to the stop? Normal IPA transcription doesn't say, and it varies between languages. Likewise, 'aspiration' or 'stress' or 'length' - IPA tells you what's there, but it doesn't tell you how MUCH of it is there! Finally, a lot of a language's (or accent's) sound comes from relatively complex and abstract differences in average phonation - how nasal is it? What pitch is it? How tense are the vocal cords? When the jaw isn't closed for a bilabial/labiodental, where does the jaw rest? How is it timed exactly? These are things that you try to imitate when you imitate an accent, but that the IPA doesn't even touch on. So if you gave even an accurate IPA reader a text, it would sound different in a Japanese woman's voice from a Brazilian man's voice.
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4365
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor »

Also, intonational details and related stuff really gives a language its characteristic sound and most of it is usually not encoded in IPA.
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
Acipencer
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 16
Joined: 27 Jun 2021 08:39

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Acipencer »

Does anyone know of any good resources on the typology of tripartite languages? It might be because tripartite languages are rare, but I haven't been able to find much on this topic. Any information would be appreciated.
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4365
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor »

This paper gives some ressources on six tripartite languages. It's the only comparative paper on tripartite systems that come to my mind right now. Maybe it has some comparative papers in its references.
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]
teotlxixtli
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 59
Joined: 05 Jan 2021 04:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by teotlxixtli »

I had read about how in some languages the word “no”, instead of simply preceding the verb it negates, also takes all the subject and tense/aspect marking of the verb. How does such a thing come about?
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 395
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

teotlxixtli wrote: 02 Jul 2021 06:59 I had read about how in some languages the word “no”, instead of simply preceding the verb it negates, also takes all the subject and tense/aspect marking of the verb. How does such a thing come about?
English is half way there; for example in the sentence "He doesn't see me", see is unconjugated and instead don't is conjugated. It's only a small step from there to do not becoming a single verb.
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 3170
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý »

I'm developing a script for Tamdouk that is based on Hebrew letters.

וּ for /u:/ and וֹ for /o:/ are handy, but I need similar letters for front vowels. Is there a Hebrew script that uses letters derived from י for both /i:/ and /e:/? And if not, how could it be?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4365
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor »

VaptuantaDoi wrote: 02 Jul 2021 08:27
teotlxixtli wrote: 02 Jul 2021 06:59 I had read about how in some languages the word “no”, instead of simply preceding the verb it negates, also takes all the subject and tense/aspect marking of the verb. How does such a thing come about?
English is half way there; for example in the sentence "He doesn't see me", see is unconjugated and instead don't is conjugated. It's only a small step from there to do not becoming a single verb.
Maybe German > English > Finnish would be a possible route.
(Some variety of) German has optional do-support, in English it is obligatory in standard negated sentences and in Finnish there is one indivisable auxilliary verb used for negation.
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
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 510
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by LinguoFranco »

I want to add secondary stress to a conlang, but I've hit a few roadblock.s

1. Let's say that in this conlang, the secondary stress starts on the first syllable, and every other syllable after it also is stressed.

So a word like /kanatuke/ is /,ka.na.,tu.ke/.

But what if a word has an odd number of syllables like /tekanu/?

Would it become /,te.ka.,nu/?

2. How would it interact with the primary stress? Can there be a /,ka.na,tu.'ke/?

3. If I had a main stress confined to the stem (say, that the final syllable of the stem gets stressed), would that mess up the secondary stress?

4. How does vowel length affect it?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5890
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore »

LinguoFranco wrote: 02 Jul 2021 16:14 I want to add secondary stress to a conlang, but I've hit a few roadblock.s
1. Let's say that in this conlang, the secondary stress starts on the first syllable, and every other syllable after it also is stressed.
So a word like /kanatuke/ is /,ka.na.,tu.ke/.
But what if a word has an odd number of syllables like /tekanu/?
Would it become /,te.ka.,nu/?
Yes.

2. How would it interact with the primary stress? Can there be a /,ka.na,tu.'ke/?
No.
A single word cannot contain two consecutive stressed syllables.
Either first some algorithm decides which syllables are stressed, then some algorithm decides which stressed syllable gets the primary stress (the other stressed syllables, if any, being secondarily stressed);
Or some algorithm decides which syllable gets the primary stress, then some algorithm uses that information to decide which (if any) other syllable(s) get secondary stress.

3. If I had a main stress confined to the stem (say, that the final syllable of the stem gets stressed), would that mess up the secondary stress?
Probably not; why would it?

4. How does vowel length affect it?
That depends on whether or not secondary stress is, or isn’t, weight-sensitive or quantity-sensitive.


…..

No kind of stress or rhythm occurs in one-syllable words.
Primary stress, if your ‘lang has it, occurs in exactly one syllable of every word with two or more syllables.
Secondary stress, if your ‘lang has it, occurs in every word with enough (at least two or at least three) consecutive syllables not next to a primarily stressed syllable.
You can have rhythm without primary stress. Rhythm is always counted as secondary stress. So you can have secondary stress without primary stress.
The other kind of secondary stress is polar stress. Your ‘lang can’t have polar stress unless it also has primary stress.
A word can’t have more than one polar-stressed syllable.
Either primary stress is calculated from the beginning of the word but polar stress is calculated from the end of the word; or else primary stress is calculated from the end of the word but polar stress is calculated from the beginning of the word.

Primary stress, if your ‘lang has it, may either be weight-sensitive or weight-insensitive.
Independently, secondary stress (whether rhythmic or polar), if your ‘lang has it, may be weight-sensitive or weight-insensitive.
If both primary stress and secondary stress are in your ‘lang, and both are weight-sensitive, they might have different definitions of “weight”.

If your ‘lang either: has rhythm; or: has both primary and secondary stress; or: both :—
Then it has (probably) or might have a rule prohibiting too many consecutive unstressed syllables in one word.
Maybe not more than two, or not more than three, or not more than four. (Which limit depends on whether rhythm is binary or ternary. Not everybody believes ternary rhythm is a real thing.)
If it has weight-insensitive rhythm this is very straightforward.
If it has weight-sensitive rhythm this becomes a more important consideration.

The fundamental rule relating stress to syllable-weight is there can never be a less-stressed heavier syllable next to a more-stressed lighter syllable.

(I recommend using Optimality Theory, and viewing the “rules” as violable constraints, and deciding which constraints have priority over which other constraints, and possibly just counting how many violations there are, to settle those situations in which you must disobey at least one rule at least once.)

If your weight-system cares about closed syllables, then syllables with codas are likelier to be heavier and open syllables are likelier to be lighter.
If your weight-system cares about what kind of consonant occurs in a coda, then syllables with a sonorant in the coda are likelier to be heavier, and syllables with no coda or with a single non-resonant coda-consonant are likelier to be lighter.
If your weight-system cares about coda-clusters, doubly-closed syllables are likelier to be heavier than singly-closed syllables.

If your weight-system cares about the nucleus, then syllables with diphthongs or longer polyphthongs are likelier to be heavier and syllables whose nucleus is a monophthong are likelier to be lighter.
If your weight-system cares about the nucleus, then syllables with longer vowels are likelier to be heavier and syllables whose nucleus is a short monophthong are likelier to be lighter.

For almost all languages with a weight-system, the syllables’ weights depend only on their rime, not their onset.
But, if syllable-weight does happen to depend on the onset; then, a syllable whose onset is LESS sonorant is likelier to be HEAVIER than a syllable with a MORE sonorant onset! The effect a consonant’s sonority in the ONSET has on the syllable weight is OPPOSITE the effect consonants’ sonority has in the CODA!

Weight is counted in morae (morsels or bites).
Monomoraic syllables are light syllables.
Bimoraic syllables are heavy syllables.
Many languages with weight systems have only these two weights.
In many (most?) systems without trimoraic or heavier syllables, primary stress (and maybe polar stress?) is “bounded”; it can occur only in one of the last two syllables, or one of the first two, or one of the last three, or one of the first three, or one of the last four, or one of the first four syllables. (“Stress windows” longer than the first three syllables or the last three syllables are either rare or controversial, I think.)

But for languages with trimoraic or heavier syllables things are sometimes different.
Many languages have trimoraic syllables.
Trimoraic syllables are called “superheavy”.
It seems a general rule that in languages with superheavy syllables, if a word contains a superheavy syllable, the superheavy syllable must be primarily stressed, no matter how far it is from the beginning or from the end of the word.
Even if the stress-window for words without superheavy syllables is just the first or last two or three or four syllables.
Obviously that doesn’t apply to words only one syllable long.
Adjustments must also be made for words containing two or more superheavy syllables.
(One solution is to define “word” in such a way that there must occur at least one word-boundary somewhere between any superheavy syllable and the next later or latest earlier other superheavy syllable.)

English is a language with superheavy syllables.

Some languages have four-morae syllables; Japanese, for instance.
Four-morae syllables are called “ultraheavy” syllables. (Or that’s what I call them; in the literature they’re called “ultrasuperheavy”, but I like the shorter word.)

People go out of their way to find some other way of explaining what happens in a language, rather than deciding it has five-morae or six-morae syllables. Nevertheless a language has been reported that seems to have six distinct syllable weights.

If primary-stress is weight-sensitive, The primarily stressed syllable will be the heaviest one, or one of those tied for heaviest, if primary stress is unbounded or the word has one or more superheavy or ultraheavy syllables. Or, if primary stress is weight-sensitive and either primary stress is bounded or the word contains no superheavy nor ultraheavy syllables, the primarily stressed syllable will be the heaviest one in the stress window, or one of those tied for heaviest in the stress window.

…..

You can work out what to do in case you want your primary stress to be morphologically bounded.
Maybe the primary stress must be on a syllable in the root; and can’t be in any affix, neither derivational nor inflectional, neither a prefix nor a suffix.
Or, maybe it has to be on the stem; it can’t be on any inflectional affix, whether a prefix or a suffix, but it can be on a derivational affix.
Or, maybe it can’t be on any prefix (neither inflectional nor derivational) nor on any inflectional affix (neither a prefix nor a suffix), but it can be on a derivational suffix.
And so on.



If you’re going to have morphologically-bounded primary stress, and also going to have rhythmic secondary stress over the whole word, you’re probably going to want to assign primary stress first, then use that information to calculate secondary stress.

Hope that helps!

Hope it’s not tl;dr!

I expect to get ninja’ed.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2413
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

I think there are some errors here.
eldin raigmore wrote: 03 Jul 2021 14:36 A single word cannot contain two consecutive stressed syllables.
Except that it can!

English, for example, has a three-way minimal pair: Batman (first syllable with secondary stress, second syllable with primary stress) is a city, Batman (both syllables with primary stress (or second with secondary stress? I don't think the primary/secondary distinction is phonemic immediately following primary)) is a fictional character, a surname, and a climbing manoeuvre, and a batman (first syllable primary stress, second syllable unstressed) is a militay valet. There isn't a fourth word with an initial unstressed syllable and primary stress on the second, but it can certainly be conceived of, and would be contrastive with these three.

I suppose you will argue that the most obvious distinction here is really a phonemic vowel distinction (schwa vs /{/). But this isn't necessarily the case, at least in dialects without the weak vowel merger, as it is possible to contrast stressed and unstressed /I/, at least in theory (I can't off-hand think of an good example, other than weird ones like foal-dish vs fold-ish). Indeed, in theory you can contrast unstressed /{/ with unstressed /@/ ('potash' has unstressed /{/, for instance), though I don't know if there's any minimal pairs. In any case, not only is the stress distinction obviously present phonetically, but denying its phonemicity would have a bunch of other ramifications - for instance, the phonemic stress triggers aspiration. So, for example, unless you want to claim a phonemic aspiration distinction in all voiceless stops, then you need the double stress to explain why the /p/ in "icepick" and "backpack" is fully aspirated.
No kind of stress or rhythm occurs in one-syllable words.
Huh?
The distinction between stressed and unstressed one-syllable words is often important perceptually (it can be taken into account in poetic metre, for instance), arguably phonemically (unstressed 'can' is always the verb, never the noun; it's tempting to suggest a phonemically-distinct unstressed verb form, as well as a stressed form that's homophonous with the noun), and very much so diachronically (which can result in very different outcomes for stressed and unstressed variants of words, and can cause minimal pairs where stress depends on word class).
Primary stress, if your ‘lang has it, occurs in exactly one syllable of every word with two or more syllables.
This certainly isn't true phonetically in English, and I'm not convinced it's true phonemically either.
You can have rhythm without primary stress. Rhythm is always counted as secondary stress. So you can have secondary stress without primary stress.
No offence, but this is sophistry!
The fundamental rule relating stress to syllable-weight is there can never be a less-stressed heavier syllable next to a more-stressed lighter syllable.
This isn't true. Latin is a counterexample - a word like "absimilis" has a more-stressed light syllable (-si-) next to an unstressed heavy syllable (ab-).

That said, what you say probably has some insight in it, but you're missing out a huge element that's needed to make it actually true - the concept of stress scope (is 'scope' the right word? Not sure. Doesn't matter). Different languages define different areas of their words in which stress must fall; it may be true that a stressed light syllable can't be next to an unstressed heavy syllable within that area, but a syllable adjacent to that area must be unstressed regardless of its weight. So, in Latin, the stress must fall on either the penult or the antepenult (in words of more than one syllable), and within that area your rule is correct. If both syllables are heavy, stress is on the penult, while if both are light it's on the antepenult. But the weight of the anteantepenult is irrelevent, because it can never be stressed. So your rule is violated in every word in which a heavy syllable is followed by exactly three light syllables (or exactly two light syllables and then one heavy syllable, for that matter).
Weight is counted in morae (morsels or bites).
It can be, yes. But it doesn't have to me. In many, if not most languages, there's no need to treat morae as a meaningful category, at least for stress assignment (they might be relevant for timing, perhaps). In Latin, for instance, stress is determined solely by whether the penult is heavy or light - the concept of morae is irrelevant. In other languages, however, the stress is a certain number of morae from the word edge, in which case the concept of morae is relevant (and contrariwise in these cases the concept of 'heavy' and 'light' syllables is probably superfluous, since you just count morae).

[the difference is because in Latin the weight of the final syllable doesn't affect stress. If it did, Latin would indeed be a moraic language]
In many (most?) systems without trimoraic or heavier syllables, primary stress (and maybe polar stress?) is “bounded”; it can occur only in one of the last two syllables, or one of the first two, or one of the last three, or one of the first three, or one of the last four, or one of the first four syllables.
Oh, not scope, boundedness, that's right. However, you've overlooked that this bit negates your rule above!
English is a language with superheavy syllables.
Huh? English doesn't have predictable stress!
If primary-stress is weight-sensitive, The primarily stressed syllable will be the heaviest one, or one of those tied for heaviest, if primary stress is unbounded or the word has one or more superheavy or ultraheavy syllables. Or, if primary stress is weight-sensitive and either primary stress is bounded or the word contains no superheavy nor ultraheavy syllables, the primarily stressed syllable will be the heaviest one in the stress window, or one of those tied for heaviest in the stress window.
I'm skeptical. For instance, I've definitely heard about languages in which the stress is determined by morae. So for instance, you should be able to have a rule like "stress falls on the fourth mora from the right", which would violate this rule (and indeed your other rule), because it would result in LHL endings to have stress on the antepenult, not the heavy penult (whereas LHH endings would stress the penult). But I don't know of any concrete examples.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3152
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Shemtov »

Reading a grammar of Tamil, I came across the idea of an "attitudinal marker" that basically mark that the action is done maliciously. I want to include this in a conlang, but what should I call it? Is it a mood or something else? There's also an "aspect" that marks that something is done for the benefit of a future time. Is this really an aspect, and what should it be called?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4365
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor »

I don't think attitudal markers fit well into any established category. The same meaning is often expressed by adverbs in other languages. Attitude is often coexpressed with other categories, such as in adversative passives.
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: 5890
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore »

Shemtov wrote: 05 Jul 2021 07:20 Reading a grammar of Tamil, I came across the idea of an "attitudinal marker" that basically mark that the action is done maliciously. I want to include this in a conlang, but what should I call it? Is it a mood or something else? There's also an "aspect" that marks that something is done for the benefit of a future time. Is this really an aspect, and what should it be called?
It’s probably a mood, if what it gets called is mostly governed by its semantic effects.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2413
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Shemtov wrote: 05 Jul 2021 07:20 Reading a grammar of Tamil, I came across the idea of an "attitudinal marker" that basically mark that the action is done maliciously. I want to include this in a conlang, but what should I call it? Is it a mood or something else?
It's something else, probably. Saying "he knocked on the door maliciously" is still indicative!

However, it's possible it might be modal, depending on how it's used. If, in practice, it's mostly used to rebuke people for acting maliciously, for instance ("he knocked on the door maliciously - shame him! shame him!"), then you could argue that it's a mood. On the face of it, though, it's not a mood. Of course, it could be treated as a mood in a given language.
There's also an "aspect" that marks that something is done for the benefit of a future time. Is this really an aspect, and what should it be called?
Yes, this is an aspect. Or at least, it can be. It can be called the preparative aspect. You could also see it as a mood or a tense. Just as the perfect indicates a realis perfective past event with irrealis imperfective non-past relevance, so too the preparative indicates a realis perfective present event with irrealis imperfective future relevance.
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4365
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor »

Hmm, but wouldn't a preparative aspect mean that the actual action expressed by the verb occurs in the future (relative to some reference time) and some other action ("preparing") might happen at the reference time?

This sounds different from doing something where the actual action denoted by the verb takes place at the reference time and it might be relevant for some future action, IINM.
Edit: I just read on Wikipedia that preparative aspect as a term is actually used for the latter in Japanese. I stand corrected.
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]
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2413
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Creyeditor wrote: 05 Jul 2021 15:45 Hmm, but wouldn't a preparative aspect mean that the actual action expressed by the verb occurs in the future (relative to some reference time) and some other action ("preparing") might happen at the reference time?

This sounds different from doing something where the actual action denoted by the verb takes place at the reference time and it might be relevant for some future action, IINM.
Edit: I just read on Wikipedia that preparative aspect as a term is actually used for the latter in Japanese. I stand corrected.
Yeah, you're right that it could mean that, but it can also mean this. I'm not sure if there's a better word for it, either. Another possibility is 'prospective', but that's more often used for 'about to', 'fixing to' aspects (near-future action being considered, prepared for or avoided at present)
User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 396
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Vlürch »

eldin raigmore wrote: 03 Jul 2021 14:36A single word cannot contain two consecutive stressed syllables.
Really? In Finnish the difference between eg. the tule in hän ei tule ("he/she doesn't come") and tule! ("come!") is /ˈtule/ and /ˈtuˈle/ AFAIK, or at least that's what it sounds like and I'm sure I've read it described that way. What the actual difference between stressed and unstressed syllables even is in Finnish is something no one can agree on, though, so... hmm...
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 3170
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý »

Vlürch wrote: 05 Jul 2021 20:47
eldin raigmore wrote: 03 Jul 2021 14:36A single word cannot contain two consecutive stressed syllables.
Really? In Finnish the difference between eg. the tule in hän ei tule ("he/she doesn't come") and tule! ("come!") is /ˈtule/ and /ˈtuˈle/ AFAIK, or at least that's what it sounds like and I'm sure I've read it described that way. What the actual difference between stressed and unstressed syllables even is in Finnish is something no one can agree on, though, so... hmm...
I think it's not stressing. Commands surely have a different intonation compared to affirmatives, but if you have Hän ei tule tänne. and Tule tänne!, both tule are similar in the word level. Most dialects have the final gemination in the end of both.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Post Reply