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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2699
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 »

gokupwned5 wrote:
23 May 2020 23:50
What orthography could I use for this vowel system? I was thinking of using tildes to indicate nasalization, but I am not sure how I could write /ɨ/ and /ɨ̃/. I was thinking of using <v> and <ṽ> respectively, but I don't think any language uses those letters for those sounds.

/i ɨ u e o a/
/ĩ ɨ̃ ũ ã/
Guarani uses <y> and <>, so that's an option.

A few languages write /ɨ/ as <ï>, but that doesn't exactly mesh well with the tilde.

Some languages use <ë> for the central /ə/. It's not perfect, but if you steal that, it gives you the option for using <> for the nasal counterpart.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
cedh
MVP
MVP
Posts: 350
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by cedh »

gokupwned5 wrote:
23 May 2020 23:50
What orthography could I use for this vowel system? I was thinking of using tildes to indicate nasalization, but I am not sure how I could write /ɨ/ and /ɨ̃/. I was thinking of using <v> and <ṽ> respectively, but I don't think any language uses those letters for those sounds.

/i ɨ u e o a/
/ĩ ɨ̃ ũ ã/
You could also use an ogonek for nasalization, and <ı> for /ɨ/. This looks great if it works -- but unfortunately, many typefaces do not really support <ı̨>, i.e. a dotless ı with a combining ogonek:
i ı u e o a
į ı̨ ų ą

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1887
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

gokupwned5 wrote:
23 May 2020 23:50
What orthography could I use for this vowel system? I was thinking of using tildes to indicate nasalization, but I am not sure how I could write /ɨ/ and /ɨ̃/. I was thinking of using <v> and <ṽ> respectively, but I don't think any language uses those letters for those sounds.

/i ɨ u e o a/
/ĩ ɨ̃ ũ ã/
There's always:
/i iu u e o a/
/imh iumh omh amh/

Or just:
/i e u ea o a/
/in en un an/

gokupwned5
sinic
sinic
Posts: 298
Joined: 12 Aug 2016 16:05

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

Post by gokupwned5 »

cedh wrote:
24 May 2020 00:11
gokupwned5 wrote:
23 May 2020 23:50
What orthography could I use for this vowel system? I was thinking of using tildes to indicate nasalization, but I am not sure how I could write /ɨ/ and /ɨ̃/. I was thinking of using <v> and <ṽ> respectively, but I don't think any language uses those letters for those sounds.

/i ɨ u e o a/
/ĩ ɨ̃ ũ ã/
You could also use an ogonek for nasalization, and <ı> for /ɨ/. This looks great if it works -- but unfortunately, many typefaces do not really support <ı̨>, i.e. a dotless ı with a combining ogonek:
i ı u e o a
į ı̨ ų ą
I think I'll go with this one, since I'm already using <y>. Thank you all!

Frogalicious
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 2
Joined: 24 May 2020 07:05

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

Post by Frogalicious »

What is a good lexical source for an obviative marker? Yønsen has a proximate/obviate system but I don't know how to derive it in the protolang.

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2277
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

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

Post by Khemehekis »

Frogalicious wrote:
24 May 2020 07:10
What is a good lexical source for an obviative marker? Yønsen has a proximate/obviate system but I don't know how to derive it in the protolang.
How about a word for "other"?



Welcome to the CBB, by the way!
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 65,595 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

Frogalicious
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 2
Joined: 24 May 2020 07:05

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

Post by Frogalicious »

Khemehekis wrote:
24 May 2020 07:15
Frogalicious wrote:
24 May 2020 07:10
What is a good lexical source for an obviative marker? Yønsen has a proximate/obviate system but I don't know how to derive it in the protolang.
How about a word for "other"?
That seems logical, thanks!
Khemehekis wrote:
24 May 2020 07:15
Welcome to the CBB, by the way!
Thanks! I've been on her for a few years with a different account, but ended up loosing both the password and the email it was attached to lol

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2277
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

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

Post by Khemehekis »

You're welcome!
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 65,595 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1887
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

Frogalicious wrote:
24 May 2020 07:10
What is a good lexical source for an obviative marker? Yønsen has a proximate/obviate system but I don't know how to derive it in the protolang.
I would assume msot often a demonstrative, like 'that' or 'yon'. An interesting route would be from a possessive, as possession is often associated with deixis and definiteness ("so my man says" can = "so the man I mentioned says"; c.f. the use of "your" in Irish English, which I don't really understand the details of, but has something to do with deixis and definiteness.

User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 231
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger »

How likely is a verbal system with just perfective and imperfective where some verbal roots are inherently perfective and need an affix to make them imperfective? (I know this existed in PIE but is it attested elsewhere?) Assuming the default unmarked aspect is imperfective. Likewise, would a system of suppletion along aspect be likely to arise between synonymous verbs where one is imperfective and another is perfective by root?

Ended up completely changing my verbal system in the space of an hour. [xP] Anyways, I now have a different question:

How likely is it for prefixed subject/object clitics to not interact with vowel harmony

User avatar
Mándinrùh
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 60
Joined: 21 Aug 2016 20:37
Location: New England

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

Post by Mándinrùh »

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
26 May 2020 01:54
How likely is it for prefixed subject/object clitics to not interact with vowel harmony
Not very, I think, but certainly it's not unheard of to have affixes that ignore harmony. Hungarian has the suffix -kor, which ignores vowel harmony, thus:
  • egykor "at one"
  • kettőkor "at two"
  • háromkor "at three"
  • ötkor "at five"
  • hatkor "at six"
Other suffixes in Hungarian occur in up to five different forms, like the accusative case marker (egyet, kettőt, hármat, ötöt, hatot).
Creator of Image Redentran
Creator of Image Bwángxùd
Creator of Image Atili
My website | My blog

User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 231
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger »

Mándinrùh wrote:
26 May 2020 04:48
CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
26 May 2020 01:54
How likely is it for prefixed subject/object clitics to not interact with vowel harmony
Not very, I think, but certainly it's not unheard of to have affixes that ignore harmony. Hungarian has the suffix -kor, which ignores vowel harmony, thus:
  • egykor "at one"
  • kettőkor "at two"
  • háromkor "at three"
  • ötkor "at five"
  • hatkor "at six"
Other suffixes in Hungarian occur in up to five different forms, like the accusative case marker (egyet, kettőt, hármat, ötöt, hatot).
Cool, honestly I wanted to have subject prefixes but didn't want them to change all of the vowels in the rest of the word.

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4165
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes »

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
26 May 2020 01:54
How likely is it for prefixed subject/object clitics to not interact with vowel harmony
The scope of vowel harmony is extremely language specific. Harmony can be either progressive or regressive (or both) and may apply to some affixes but not to others. It is not necessary for you to “demote” your subject prefixes to clitics in order for them to ignore vowel harmony.

User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 231
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger »

At this point I'm already attached to them being clitics (they get used similarly in other places as part of the increasing head marking-ness of the language as it evolves.)
DesEsseintes wrote:
26 May 2020 05:13
The scope of vowel harmony is extremely language specific. Harmony can be either progressive or regressive (or both) and may apply to some affixes but not to others. It is not necessary for you to “demote” your subject prefixes to clitics in order for them to ignore vowel harmony.
Are there any cross-linguistic trends that influence this? Like whether a morpheme becomes grammaticallized before or after the introduction of harmony, or something else?

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1887
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

It's certainly possible for a morpheme to be aggregated to a word afte a process has ceased to be fully productive, and thus create exceptions, yes. I'm sure you could probably find examples in English, for example, of derived words that lack trisyllabic laxing because the derivation happened too late (although TL is still partially active in English, in perceived classical loanwords).


I would suspect that stress and timing patterns may also be a factor. If you have a stressed prefix, or a syllable-timed word with relatively even stress, for example, it's presumably much more likely that that prefix will be able to mutate the rest of the word; whereas if you have a strongly stress-timed language in which unstressed syllables are prone to massive reduction, and your prefix is unstressed, it's harder to see it altering the rest of the word.

[but, fun idea: prefixes trigger vowel harmony and THEN get reduced to schwa as the language becomes more stress-timed. The result? Seemingly unconditioned ablaut. /ke-takok/ yields /k@t{k2k/, while /ku-takok/ yields /k@tAtkok/...]


User avatar
Ser
sinic
sinic
Posts: 243
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

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

Post by Ser »

Salmoneus wrote:
24 May 2020 13:40
Frogalicious wrote:
24 May 2020 07:10
What is a good lexical source for an obviative marker? Yønsen has a proximate/obviate system but I don't know how to derive it in the protolang.
I would assume msot often a demonstrative, like 'that' or 'yon'. An interesting route would be from a possessive, as possession is often associated with deixis and definiteness ("so my man says" can = "so the man I mentioned says"; c.f. the use of "your" in Irish English, which I don't really understand the details of, but has something to do with deixis and definiteness.
Would you say some European languages developed such a distinction in demonstratives? Especially in written language. I'm thinking of the use of Latin hic 'this' for 'the one I just mentioned' versus is or ille for the one I mentioned before (or that I'll mention soon). Written French uses ceci and celà much in the same way. English has basically the same thing but not from demonstratives: "the former" and "the latter".
Mándinrùh wrote:
26 May 2020 04:48
CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
26 May 2020 01:54
How likely is it for prefixed subject/object clitics to not interact with vowel harmony
Not very, I think, but certainly it's not unheard of to have affixes that ignore harmony.
Hilariously, I know of one example of the opposite, where clitic pronouns are the only ones that have vowel harmony. In Standard Arabic, inflectional affixes (like na-, -na, -u, -tu, -tum, -tunna, -aani) and derivational affixes (like mu-, mi-, ta-, -iiya) do not undergo vowel harmony, but a few of the clitic object/possessive pronouns do. -hu '3SG.MASC', -humaa '3DU', -hum '3PL.MASC' and -hunna '3PL.FEM' become -hi, -himaa, -him and -hinna if they attach to a word ending in /i/, /i:/ or /j/, e.g.:

katabta=hum ("wrote.2SG.MASC=3PL.MASC")
'You (man) wrote them.'

katabti=him ("wrote.2SG.FEM=3PL.MASC")
'You (woman) wrote them.'

li=kitaabai=hi ("for=books.DU.GEN=3SG.MASC")
'for his two books'

Note that the phonologically similar clitic pronouns -kumaa '2DU', -kum '2PL.MASC' and -kunna '2PL.FEM' do not have this vowel harmony.
Salmoneus wrote:
26 May 2020 13:49
It's certainly possible for a morpheme to be aggregated to a word afte a process has ceased to be fully productive, and thus create exceptions, yes. I'm sure you could probably find examples in English, for example, of derived words that lack trisyllabic laxing because the derivation happened too late (although TL is still partially active in English, in perceived classical loanwords).
I wonder whether some of such words have actually had the tense ("long") vowel restored in recent times due to the influence of a related word. "Diplomacy" seems to retain /oʊ/ (SSBE /əʊ/) thanks to "diploma", and while "prosody" usually has /ɑ/ (SSBE /ɒ/), also varyingly with /s/ or /z/, it is sometimes pronounced with /oʊ/ probably due to (recent?) contamination of "prose".

As an opposite example, older dictionaries seem to generally list "amenities" with /i/ (SSBE /i:/), but in more recent ones, and nearly 100% of the time in my personal experience, this word has /ɛ/. Of course, it helps it's a pretty uncommon word you don't get to hear much, so the larger pattern can be applied on it.
Last edited by Ser on 26 May 2020 17:49, edited 1 time in total.
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.

User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 231
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger »

Ser wrote:
26 May 2020 17:15

Hilariously, I know of one example of the opposite, where clitic pronouns are the only ones that have vowel harmony. In Standard Arabic, inflectional affixes (like na-, -na, -u, -tu, -tum, -tunna, -aani) and derivational affixes (like mu-, mi-, ta-, -iiya) do not undergo vowel harmony, but a few of the clitic object/possessive pronouns do. -hu '3SG.MASC', -humaa '3DU', -hum '3PL.MASC' and -hunna '3PL.FEM' become -hi, -himaa, -him and -hinna if they attach to a word ending in /i/, /i:/ or /j/, e.g.:

katabta=hum ("wrote.2SG.MASC=3PL.MASC")
'You (man) wrote them.'

katabti=him ("wrote.2SG.FEM=3PL.MASC")
'You (woman) wrote them.'

li=kitaabai=hi ("for=books.GEN=3SG.MASC")
'for his two books'

Note that the phonologically similar clitic pronouns -kumaa '2DU', -kum '2PL.MASC' and -kunna '2PL.FEM' do not have this vowel harmony.
I think I've settled on a solution I like:
Yönsen vowels harmonize to the stressed vowel, meaning that harmony can be both progressive and regressive. Clitics are never stressed, so they always harmonize to whatever pattern the stem was already in.

As for the definite article (I cut out the obviation because it didn't really mesh all that well with the other things in the lang), it's derived from the 2nd person possessive pronoun.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1887
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

Ser wrote:
26 May 2020 17:15
Salmoneus wrote:
24 May 2020 13:40
Frogalicious wrote:
24 May 2020 07:10
What is a good lexical source for an obviative marker? Yønsen has a proximate/obviate system but I don't know how to derive it in the protolang.
I would assume msot often a demonstrative, like 'that' or 'yon'. An interesting route would be from a possessive, as possession is often associated with deixis and definiteness ("so my man says" can = "so the man I mentioned says"; c.f. the use of "your" in Irish English, which I don't really understand the details of, but has something to do with deixis and definiteness.
Would you say some European languages developed such a distinction in demonstratives? Especially in written language. I'm thinking of the use of Latin hic 'this' for 'the one I just mentioned' versus is or ille for the one I mentioned before (or that I'll mention soon). Written French uses ceci and celà much in the same way.
It's extremely common - probably in the majority of languages? - for spatial deictic terms (this and that) to be extended for use in contrastive deixis in this way.
English has basically the same thing but not from demonstratives: "the former" and "the latter".
I don't follow you here. English uses plain 'this' and 'that' for contrastive deixis usually (although we can also use, for instance, 'my' and 'your', and extended forms like 'that other'). 'Former' and 'latter' are a bit different - they're a form of textual rather than contrastive deixis (that is: used contrastively, 'this' is in some way conceptually primary and 'that' is secondary, but are not necessarily introduced in that order ("I admit that that idea was terrible, but listen to this one!"), whereas 'former' and 'latter' are defined strictly by order in the text). They're also very restricted in use, both in register and in scope (they're overwhelmingly used in single references immediately after the joint introduction, and while they can be used more widely than that (eg introducing contrasting topics), they are very rarely used repeatedly throughout a passage with constant reference, as 'this' and 'that' can be). (although admittedly the contrastive use of 'this' and 'that' isn't totally natural either, at least in modern speech, and often has to be reinforced in some way with extensions or substitutions if it continues too long).
Salmoneus wrote:
26 May 2020 13:49
It's certainly possible for a morpheme to be aggregated to a word afte a process has ceased to be fully productive, and thus create exceptions, yes. I'm sure you could probably find examples in English, for example, of derived words that lack trisyllabic laxing because the derivation happened too late (although TL is still partially active in English, in perceived classical loanwords).
I wonder whether some of such words have actually had the tense ("long") vowel restored in recent times due to the influence of a related word. "Diplomacy" seems to retain /oʊ/ (SSBE /əʊ/) thanks to "diploma", and while "prosody" usually has /ɑ/ (SSBE /ɒ/), also varyingly with /s/ or /z/, it is sometimes pronounced with /oʊ/ probably due to (recent?) contamination of "prose".
I've never hear the latter pronounciation of 'prosody', and it had never occured to me to link 'diploma' and 'diplomacy', as there's no semantic connexion; but yes, certainly analogical restoration of short (from trisyllabic and precluster laxing) and long (from open syllable lengthening) vowels was widespread, and is still ongoing.

As an opposite example, older dictionaries seem to generally list "amenities" with /i/ (SSBE /i:/), but in more recent ones, and nearly 100% of the time in my personal experience, this word has /ɛ/. Of course, it helps it's a pretty uncommon word you don't get to hear much, so the larger pattern can be applied on it.
This is a shibboleth - I've never heard this word with /E/ in the UK, except as a mockery of Americans and Americophiles (Ameriphiles? really should be a proper word for that...). [c.f. "defence" with /i:/]

[Here's a comedic example of the UK pronunciation]

User avatar
Ser
sinic
sinic
Posts: 243
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

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

Post by Ser »

Salmoneus wrote:
28 May 2020 23:48
(although admittedly the contrastive use of 'this' and 'that' isn't totally natural either, at least in modern speech, and often has to be reinforced in some way with extensions or substitutions if it continues too long).
Yes, and this is precisely what made me doubt about "this" vs. "that" not being that common. Although your example there ("I admit that that idea...") sounds natural to me, and so does its translation into Spanish, I feel contrastive "this" vs. "that" pretty unnatural overall. I definitely don't see it in English or Spanish as often as I see it in formal written French or ancient Latin. In formal written English, I'm more likely to encounter "the former" and "the latter" playing a similar role some of the time instead (and I also notice the restrictions you mention).
This is a shibboleth - I've never heard this word with /E/ in the UK, except as a mockery of Americans and Americophiles (Ameriphiles? really should be a proper word for that...). [c.f. "defence" with /i:/]
I find it interesting that "amenities" does seem to be subject to diatopic variation... I can't deny I wish there were better, easy-to-consult resources on English pronunciation.

For what it's worth, I consulted Wells's Longman Pronunciation Dictionary to see what it had, and it lists both /iː/ and /ɛ/ for both the UK and the US. He also marks /iː/ in "defence" and many other de- words as educated non-RP (a mark he usually uses for prestigious northern English pronunciation, like "one" /wɒn/ and "bath" /bæθ/, but maybe in this case maybe it just means an innovation of SSBE?). He lists "prosody" with /ɒs/, with the minor variant /ɒz/ and the even more minor variant /əʊz/. This is not to look down on it, as otherwise that dictionary contains some interesting commentary not found anywhere else in English lexicography. On the same page column that "amenity" is found, there's also the following (my quoting is accurate except for original e -> ɛ):

amen ˌɑː ˈmɛn ˌeɪ- —Although ˌɑː is the usual form among Protestants in Britain, ˌeɪ- is preferred by Roman Catholics and also in non-religious contexts, as in ˌAmen ˈCorner. In AmE, ˌeɪ- predominates in speech, but ˌɑː- is preferred in singing. ~s z

amentcatkinˈæm ənt ˈeɪm- ~s z
amentmentally deficient personˈeɪ mɛnt -mənt; æ ˈmɛnt ~s s

Amherst (i) ˈæm əst || -ərst , (ii) -hɜːst || -hɜ˞ːst(i) is the traditional form in both BrE and AmE, and hence appropriate for Baron A~, the 18th century general, and for the place in MA.

(Blue stands for the main data, ◄ for an allowed stress shift.)

I sometimes wonder to what extent all this pronunciation variation exists due to the depth of the English writing system... In Spanish, more often than not, people agree that whatever would be the spelling pronunciation is the correct pronunciation...
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.

Post Reply